Is your gas mileage decreasing

[Dick Adair]

For the last 2 weeks I have noticed small signs on the gas pumps in our area. (South central PA, Lancaster County). "This fuel contains less than 10% ethanol." It is all the pumps and you have no other choice. I don't think it is my imagination, but my fuel economy seems to be a lot less. 230-240 miles compared to 280-300 miles per fill up, which is about 15-16 gallons per fill. Most of my driving is local. I'm curious if other areas of the country have this? I have not heard anyone else complain about it, but it actually increases your cost of driving another 10-15%. What a deal, they use corn to make ethanol, which increases the cost of food, then put the ethanol into the tank which decreases the fuel octane and your mpg. Am I missing something here?

[Jim Becker]

Many vehicles get less mileage the colder it is and we've finally had a bit of colder temps here in PA. But I, too, am not largely in favor of increasing use of Ethanol for fuels, both due to the high energy cost to produce it and the way that food prices are being skewed upward further as farmers switch to producing more corn, rather than other food crops. This is a tough situation, however, as there truly is a need to be less dependent on fossil fuels over time, and Ethanol also "can" burn cleaner with an engine properly tuned for it.

BTW, those of us who drive hybrids also have our worst mileage during the coldest weather as battery technologies available today are much less efficient when they are cold. I take about a 3 MPG hit on my Highlander at this time of year, although I can't complain too much about just under 25 mpg in a mid-sized SUV.

[Tim Malyszko]

I too have seen a drop in gas mileage this winter and attribute it both to the cold and to the 10% ethanol blend. Ethanol actually has almost 50% less potential energy than gasoline. So, if your car/truck normally gets 20 mpg on 100% gasoline, a 10% blend of ethanol will reduce your mileage by about 1 mpg. Then, throw in the cold factor, you will see another mile or two reduction. Remember that most people "warm" their car in the morning and keep it idling more often when its cold out, so that too plays into the reduced gas mileage.

This winter, I've experienced almost a 3 mpg drop in fuel efficiency. I use to fill up around 250-250 miles, but I'm now filling up around 210-220 miles and putting more fuel in than before.

Also, all the funky "state specific" blends of gasoline required to meet State EPA regulations are affecting it. I'm not sure how, but ever since this became a big deal, my MPG went down.

[Jim O'Dell]

It's been reported here, IIRC, about the amount of energy in gas vs ethanol. There is a big difference. I work for a car dealership service department and I hear it almost every day. Personally, I haven't noticed a hit in mileage on my 2002 E250 ext van. It's not a flex fuel design either. But then, I don't drive over 62 mph, and I do very easy accelerations and decelerations. My wife's 1999 Gr. Caravan is a flex fuel design, and I think it takes about a 1 to 1.2 mpg hit on the ethanol fuel. But then, she drives a lot more than I do, and probably a little faster. :rolleyes: Jim.

[Joe Pelonio]

I have always found a 2-3 MPG decrease in winter, and blames it on the E10 but then it could be the weather too I suppose. On the other hand, I made a recent trip to my Mom's driving 3 hours and part way back before filling up it calculated out at 25MPG, the best I'd ever gotten, and amazing for a 4.0 V6 4x4 Ranger. I attribute that to the fact that I had no traffic all the way and was able to use cruise control all but a few miles of the trip.

[Ken Werner]

Ethanol carries less energy per gallon tha gasoline. I have found that I get significantly worse mpg using 10% ethanol fuel. And it is not compensated for by the slightly lower price of the mix.

Cold temps also reduce mpg.

Ken

[Mike Henderson]

Ethanol is added to gasoline to raise the octane rating, but it contains less energy than gasoline so your gas mileage suffers. Even at 10% ethanol you'll see a significant (at least I consider it significant) decrease in miles/gallon compared to gasoline with no ethanol.

I was driving cross country and drove through the corn belt. I have a trip computer on the car that measures miles/gallon. I thought something was wrong with the car because the miles/gallon decreased from about 25 MPG to about 21MPG. But when I left the corn belt, my gas mileage went back to what it had been before. The corn belt states mandated use of ethanol to create a market for their farmers' corn. Now, most of the country gets to enjoy ethanol in their gasoline.

Mike

[Greg Peterson]

We've been getting the 'winter blend' gasoline for years now. Long before any considerations were given to bio-fuels. Heck, the word wasn't even in the vernacular.

The state department of environmental quality mandated the winter blend (ethanol) to reduce emissions in the winter months. Being our metro area is in a valley, certain gas emissions can accumulate during winter months. The ethanol additive is suppose to reduce these gases.

That's the story they tell us anyway. Been that way for 15 years or so.

[Roy Hatch]

Rolling resistance is increased by underinflated tires, thus more gas is used. Tire pressure may drop approx 1 psi for each 10 degree drop in temperature. This can be significant for those who don't check tire pressure as temperatures drop in the winter. Of course we all have compressors, so that shouldn't be a problem.

[Jason Roehl]

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfgecon.htm

Ethanol does not have 50% the energy gasoline does, it's closer to 70%, so assuming your car is running and tuned properly, switching to E10 (10% ethanol, 90% gasoline), should only hurt your mileage by about 3%. If your mileage was 20.0 MPG, then it might drop to 19.4 MPG or so because of the switch. Cold air has a far greater (negative) effect, and the comment about the impact of low tire pressures is spot-on. I always run close to the max listed on the sidewall of my tires and have never had the tires wear in the center like that is supposed to cause.

[Ron Dunn]

Jim O'Dell, are you seeing any damage to vehicles from ethanol blended fuel?

When it was first trialled in Australia, many older cars experienced fuel system problems, eventually leading to engine damage. It is not recommended here for any car older than (I think) 10 years.

What is the US experience?

[Curt Harms]

I seem to recall that engines running on mostly or all ethanol can run higher compressions due to higher octane (knock resistance) which can recover some of the mpg hit. Anybody know about that?

Curt

[Kyle Kraft]

Around here there are a few stations that have an E85 pump (85% ethanol 15% gasoline). According to the motorheads that I work with, the fuel efficiency of an E85 burning vehicle is lower when compared to the equivalent gasoline burner. The E85 fuel costs maybe $0.20 less than the current gasoline price, but you burn more of it. So to me the only reason to use it is the alleged environmental benefits, whatever you believe them to be.

[Jason Roehl]

Jim O'Dell, are you seeing any damage to vehicles from ethanol blended fuel?

When it was first trialled in Australia, many older cars experienced fuel system problems, eventually leading to engine damage. It is not recommended here for any car older than (I think) 10 years.

What is the US experience?

E10 first came around in about the mid-80's and caused some problems during the summertime with "vapor-lock." I think this was mainly older carbureted vehicles, and there may have been some problems with fuel lines also. Virtually everything on the road now can handle the E10, even vehicles that are up to 20 years old (my vehicles are a '93 and '96, no fuel system problems). E85 is another ballgame altogether. Vehicles MUST be flex-fuel equipped to run that stuff, or fuel lines and seals can fall apart, and they probably can't produce the proper fuel-air ratios, either.

[Ken Garlock]

Energy content that is.

Ethanol contains only 66% of the energy that the same measure of gasoline contains. Ethanol contains around 76,000 BTU/gal. while gasoline contains about 114,000 BTU/gal. Simple arithmetic shows that it takes 1 1/2 gal of ethanol to produce the same BTU content as in 1 gal of gasoline. Or, 3 gal of ethanol to match 2 gal of gasoline. Hence, ethanol should cost 66% as much as gasoline in order to maintain the same price per BTU. Never happen!:mad:

You green gents might want to notice that the price of wheat has reached $10/bushel for the very first time because the farmers are all rushing to make money on corn for ethanol. Can you say $1.50 doughnut, and $8 loaf of bread. I would rather buy groceries than wring my hands over how to fuel a car.:mad:

[Lee Koepke]

Energy content that is.

Ethanol contains only 66% of the energy that the same measure of gasoline contains. Ethanol contains around 76,000 BTU/gal. while gasoline contains about 114,000 BTU/gal. Simple arithmetic shows that it takes 1 1/2 gal of ethanol to produce the same BTU content as in 1 gal of gasoline. Or, 3 gal of ethanol to match 2 gal of gasoline. Hence, ethanol should cost 66% as much as gasoline in order to maintain the same price per BTU. Never happen!:mad:

You green gents might want to notice that the price of wheat has reached $10/bbl for the very first time because the farmers are all rushing to make money on corn for ethanol. Can you say $1.50 doughnut, and $8 loaf of bread. I would rather buy groceries than wring my hands over how to fuel a car.:mad:logic and reason have no place with these people :D

if its affordable and makes sense MOST americans will do the right thing. There are so many outside issues with ethanol and yall have touched on the major ones thus far. If we, as a culture, look after some of the easier targets, such as lighting, insulation, recycling, and being 'less disposable', those are the issues we can make the most headway with.

[Curt Harms]

I've heard that from 12%-25% of the energy in a gallon of fuel goes to provide vehicle propulsion. The rest goes out the radiator, exhaust pipe, heat from the drive train etc. Just think if that number were 40%-50%. How to accomplish that? Way above my pay grade:).

Curt

[Greg Peterson]

While oil produces the highest BTU per unit of any fuel available, the down side is the emissions of this energy source. Ethanol doesn't provide the same bang for the buck, but the emissions are less harmful.

It is certainly a legitimate argument that more fossil fuels are spent in the production of ethanol than is otherwise saved. But that is an invalid reason to cease preparing the infrastructure so that when research produces a viable alternative we can quickly and inexpensively adapt. Nothing wrong with being prepared.

And I'm sure the long suffering farmers are enjoying a positive cash flow for once.

[Jim O'Dell]

Jim O'Dell, are you seeing any damage to vehicles from ethanol blended fuel?

When it was first trialled in Australia, many older cars experienced fuel system problems, eventually leading to engine damage. It is not recommended here for any car older than (I think) 10 years.

What is the US experience?

Ron, Jason's answer is correct as I know it. I've not seen any damage that any tech has blamed on the ethanol. But I think mileage wise we'd be happier with out it as an additive. :rolleyes: But then, we see very little gas engine problems anymore. Carbon build up is the biggest thing, and it's not that bad. Makes the engine harder to start at times on a cold start. Robs a little power when cold. Usually these cars have been run on the cheaper fuels that have little or no additives. I try to use Chevron with the Techron additive as much as possible. You can buy it int he bottle and add to the tank, but it's 20.00 a bottle!!
Diesel, especially the new breed of cleaner burning diesels.... that's a whole 'nuther song. Jim.

[Jim O'Dell]

Forgot about this one. One issue the ethanol has on some of the older cars is the check valve in the fuel system/pump that holds pressure to the fuel rail when the engine is off for faster starts. Some of the older vehicles had a plastic check valve. Works fine of fossil fuels. Ethanol/alcohol eats the check valve up, causing long cranks to start the engine because of lack of fuel pressure. Jim.

[Mike Henderson]

I seem to recall that engines running on mostly or all ethanol can run higher compressions due to higher octane (knock resistance) which can recover some of the mpg hit. Anybody know about that?

Curt
That's correct. Ethanol has an octane rating in excess of 100 (exact value depends on which technique you use to measure it) so an engine using it can run higher compresssion ratios. But the engine has to be designed that way and you'd be stuck with high octane fuel for the life of the vehicle.

In the Indianapolis 500, all of the cars use ethanol (if I remember correctly).

Mike

[Ken Garlock]

Diesel, especially the new breed of cleaner burning diesels.... that's a whole 'nuther song. Jim.

Diesel is a better answer than ethanol, IMO. Last August I bought a M/B E-class diesel. It churns out 208 hp at nearly 400 ft-lbs torque. And as a 2007 model it is emission approved in all but the "tree hugger" states. The 2008 model is approved in ALL 50 states. I consistently get 28 to 29 mpg on a a tank of fuel. It does not smell, or produce black smoke. It is a quiet running engine. While it is only 208 hp, the wide torque range will set you back in the seat with a 6.6 sec 0-60 acceleration.

I am not suggesting that everybody buy a Benz, but the technology is well tested, and commonplace in Europe. Both Mercedes Benz, Bavarian Manure Wagon (BMW), and VW sell diesel cars in the US. It is an easy way to make a major dent in the oil import. Why are the US automakers not exploiting this technology? No it is not a renewable energy supply, but it can extend the existing supply.

IF you want to get off oil, then exploit hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel can solve a couple problems. First build nuclear power plants to electrolyze ocean water thus producing hydrogen and oxygen with the byproduct of ocean minerals. The fuel for the plants can be obtained by reprocessing the existing "spent" uranium fuel rods of existing plant. The byproduct of reprocessing the spent fuel is Cesium with a half-life of a couple hundred years, instead of tens of thousands with the existing methods. It beat the #$*& out of storing them under ground. IF you don't like nuclear power, go for coal gasification electric generation plant that only produces low temp CO2 that can be contained and dealt with. The cost of building a coal gasification plant is about 20% more than a standard coal plant. Your friendly electric company will not be building such a plant with out a mandate or arm twisting.

IN the long term I don't care, but I do get frustrated by stupidity that is running rampant. If I can get through the next 30 yrs without a terrorist killing everybody on the planet, I will be happy. ( Oh, I forgot, they are just poor misunderstood people, just ask any college professor who never held a real job in his/her life.)

[Chad Voller]

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfgecon.htm
I always run close to the max listed on the sidewall of my tires and have never had the tires wear in the center like that is supposed to cause.

This depends on the vehicle. Normally inflating to 32-35PSI, the average max on P metric tires (some are 41PSI), won't hurt too much. Inflating your tires to their max on a vehicle, say an older Explorer, causes instability. Remember the Firestone and Ford problems, both blamed each other, but it was Ford who told their customers to inflate their tires below what Firestone considered safe, just so it would lower the risk of roll-over, squirming tires, etc....but instead the tires blew up from over heating due to lower air pressure. Bad design on Ford's part. Glad the newer Explorer's don't flip anymore.

Inflating to the max PSI on larger tires like LT, on a 1/2 ton vehicle, will cause the vehicle to squirm all over the road in some situations (it'll feel like you are in a boat), and cause the tires to wear down the center. Filling to 80PSI when only 35-40 PSI is needed is a big no-no. Raise and lower air pressure with the loads you carry. Most people find this a hassle and leave them over filled, then complain when the tires wear, finding there is no warranty because they voided it themselves. Usually this only happens to people who think their 1/2 ton truck works just as good as a tractor.

Use the air pressure recommended in the door of your car for best wear. Usually driver's door, but can be in any door depending on manufacturer. You might get a little better milage by upping your air pressure past this recommendation, but it also reduces handling performance.

[Jason Roehl]

Chad, my work truck is an F250, so the rears get 80 PSI, and the fronts get 51 PSI. Both are the max listed on the door sticker, but for the rears it's also the max listed on the tire's sidewall. Obviously, that's intended for full load, which I don't know that I've ever carried.

To adjust tires for load, there would need to be a table or at least an interpolative graph, with pressure for no load and pressure for full load shown. The problem is, nobody (driving non-commercially) has the time or tools to weigh their load or figure the weight distribution so that they could appropriately adjust their tire pressures for the given load. I've driven my vehicles virtually empty at full pressure, and there's not really a handling difference. There may be a slight difference in an emergency maneuver, but I try to avoid having to make those.

Even when my tires have worn out before the typical 40k rating, it's never been due to center wear from over-inflation.

[Tom Godley]

I just noticed this in PA yesterday! -- I have not seen this in NY but I can not say I look all that close to the pumps.

I normally buy my gas when I am in NJ - I think that NJ is the last state that does not allow you to pump you own gas - plus the gas tax is low! Not having to pump my own gas and paying less for it is a win win IMO.

Ethanol IMO is causing an imbalance in the supply/demand for both corn and sugar beets. The subsidies and some of the mandates are driving this and the product does not provide the needed solution.

It is not the same as providing a subsidy for a gas/electric hybrid -- this technology has real promise but requires real world experimentation and increased battery development. I just wish we were providing the money correctly so that the US would reap the benefits in jobs and treasure.

[Greg Peterson]

The diesel engine is popular in Europe and gets great mileage on the hiway (where the diesel achieves its greatest economy), which is where the Europeans do the bulk of their driving. Mass transit gets them around their local community. For the typical American commuter the diesel engine would not provide any economy, especially when you factor in the high cost of diesel fuel these days.

Horsepower is not a factor in my daily driving. Sure it is handy from time to time, but I prefer fuel economy, comfort and safety over HP. I'm sure most commuters would put HP pretty near the bottom of their list too.

HP is nice, but not practical in normal commuting traffic. I don't feel to sorry for the folks driving their Mustang GT's or F350 Powerstroke 4x4's to work when they're stuck in slow moving traffic just like me. And I see it every single day.

[Ken Garlock]

The diesel engine is popular in Europe and gets great mileage on the hiway (where the diesel achieves its greatest economy), which is where the Europeans do the bulk of their driving. Mass transit gets them around their local community. For the typical American commuter the diesel engine would not provide any economy, especially when you factor in the high cost of diesel fuel these days.



Hi Greg, I have been told/read that a vast majority of taxis in Europe are diesels. If there is no economy to be had, why do they run so many of them? I don't know the answer....

I know from waiting at traffic lights that the mpg of my diesel drops by the second when idling. But, you don't have to hit the highway to get 28 mpg. With the high engine torque my car can have a 2.5:1 rear-end ratio. I can run 70 mph at 1800 rpm all day. I have also noted that a tail wind is worth 2 to 4 mpg(my very best was 37.2 mpg). Likewise, a head wind can cause a drop of the same 2 to 4 mpg.

Well, I think we have pretty much beat up on this horse.:rolleyes:

[Jason Roehl]

I agree, Ken. Diesels are typically better at low-RPM torque than a gas engine. This means that they can have a higher gearing (numerically lower), which will keep their RPM down through all gears. At idle, a Diesel might have up to 90% of its peak torque available, whereas with a gas engine that number might be 50%. That makes it easier to drive/accelerate with a light foot, so even stop-and-go driving is more economical. However, the high price of Diesel fuel (at least in my area) would probably offset any savings, especially if one factors in the premium paid for the Diesel engine option on a new vehicle.

[Chad Voller]

Jason, 3/4 ton and up usually do not have the same problems as passenger cars or 1/2 ton trucks with tire wear. The tire design can also determine wether or not over inflating will cause a problem or not. Tires that have less space between lugs and with less sipings in the tread will show less wear patterns from over inflation, alignment problems, or worn parts, these types of tires are common on 3/4 and 1 ton trucks or vans. Keeping the tires rotated every 6-7,000 miles also helps eliminate signs.

This does not mean it's ok for every car or truck to inflate to the max rating on the tire. Notice I was referring to 1/2 ton trucks that are wrongfully used as heavy work trucks. What works for you will most likely not work for everyone else. I can't count how many times I've heard "but my dad said it'd be ok, why are my tires wearing funny". Many people bump up the tire pressure without knowing the consequences to doing so, because they think that every Max rating must mean it'll work with any given vehicle's weight.

Changing air pressure is not that hard and gauges are cheap. The weight that a tire can hold at max PSI is right after the Max air pressure rating (do not use this rating on P metric tires, it is rated for when the tire is cold). Add your rear axle weight to the estimate of the weight you are carrying. If it is close to the Max weight on the tire, use Max PSI, if it somewhere in between the tire's max rating and the rear axle weight (per wheel), raise it accordingly. It doesn't have to be right on. If someone doesn't want to take the time to release the air pressure they used when towing their camper up to the lake, it's their fault for any damage done to the tire. Again, not everyone will experience problems from raising it, but it is not a manufacturer of the tire or vehicles recommendation due to safety and premature wear.

[Rod Sheridan]

Jim O'Dell, are you seeing any damage to vehicles from ethanol blended fuel?

When it was first trialled in Australia, many older cars experienced fuel system problems, eventually leading to engine damage. It is not recommended here for any car older than (I think) 10 years.

What is the US experience?

I have a 1976 BMW R90/6 motorcycle.

A few years ago, I was on vacation in the US with the bike, and it began running running rich, then very rich, then gasoline began running out of the overflow on both carbs.

A quick inspection showed that the floats had disolved.

It turns out that the floats were foam, dipped in shellac, which is impervious to gasoline, however not to alcohol.

Once the shellac had disolved, the gasoline disolved the floats.

I now have new alcohol proof floats in the bike.......An odd learning experience while on vacation......Rod.

[Anthony Whitesell]

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ETHANOL (atleast at the 10% that's in the fuel around here). You're air conditioner has been running all winter. The A/C runs when the defroster is on. I drive 30,000 miles a year, use 15-17 gallons a week. I always get the best gas mileage in the spring and the fall. I drive a 2004 Nissan Altima and get 32-33 mpg in the spring and fall and 28-29 in the summer and the winter. Hummm...the same in the summer and the winter? The air conditioner is only on in the winter and the summer.

I tried a few experiments in January.
1. I physically disconnected the air conditioner wires so it would not run. Yep. 28.6 last week, 32.4 this week.
2. Re-connected the A/C and ran it like normal. Back to 28.6
3. With the A/C re-connected, I froze my butt off and never turned on the heat. Try that for twelve hours (that's how long a tank of gas lasts me on the clock) in New England in January. Back to 32
4. Ran the defroster the entire week. Made sure never to turn off the fan or change it out of defrost. How low can you go? Try 27.2mpg.

Try it for yourself...

I now try to minimize my defroster usage to minimize the amount the A/C runs. What's worse is that some cars A/C doesn't turn off after the defroster has been turned on until the car is turned off. That would be the Nissan Altima. The '02 Chevy S-10 and '02 Cavalier both only run the A/C when the defroster runs. The A/C turns off when not in defrost (unlike the Altima)

[Chris Padilla]

My "miles per gallon" is directly related to the direction and speed of the blowing wind; I bike to/from work. :D

[Chad Voller]

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ETHANOL (atleast at the 10% that's in the fuel around here). You're air conditioner has been running all winter. The A/C runs when the defroster is on. I drive 30,000 miles a year, use 15-17 gallons a week. I always get the best gas mileage in the spring and the fall. I drive a 2004 Nissan Altima and get 32-33 mpg in the spring and fall and 28-29 in the summer and the winter. Hummm...the same in the summer and the winter? The air conditioner is only on in the winter and the summer.


I'm not 100% postive on this, but the AC is on when you turn defrost on so the moisture is pulled out of the air being blown onto the window. I'm just lucky I park in a heated garage, as I rarely need to use it. I think in MN, the mix is always 8-10%, so I can't blame my milage on that, unless they recently added more ethanol? The extreme low temperatures drop tire pressure when parked outside at work, and I work real close to home, so the engine doesn't warm up all the way for efficient driving. These affect me the most. Of course if I ran my defrost more, it will kill my milage even more. In-town driving in these conditions I see about 19MPG in a 01 Grand Am, and about 22 in the summer. Highway wise I get 27-29 both summer and winter, just depends on how much faster than legal I feel like driving.

[Anthony Whitesell]

That's exactly why the defroster is on. While my AC was disconnected the windows fogged horribly until the car was toasty warm and the window was hot enough not to condense the water vapor.

On short stints I would expect to see a small drop in mileage due to the @#$% computers in the cars. In the winter, the starting mixture is richer than in the summer due to the temperature. I would double check to make sure that you never turn to the defroster during the week and see what happens with your mileage.

[Roy Hatch]

Forgive me if someone has already mentioned the subject of "Top Tier" gasoline. It's interesting to see how the list has grown from when I first saw it. http://www.toptiergas.com/retailers.html.

I still buy the cheap stuff.

Roy

[Thomas Canfield]

Back in the '50s, the LPG (Butane & Propane) dealer in my rural South Texas town was driving a pickup converted to propane. He was always ready to stop and show how clean the oil was with the clean burning fuel. He was reluctant to talk about the lack of power and that it only had about 50 to 60% of the power and towing capacity of a gasoline engine and the mpg were also way down. The price of propane was about half the price of gasoline then so that was not as big and issue.

Using corn for fuel sure looks to be questionable with all the problems, feed issues for livestock, and food related issues. Sure glad that BIG Brother is watching out for us poor individuals like us don't have to make those decisions. I do plan to keep driving a plain gasoline engine as long as possible.

[Rob Russell]

BTW, those of us who drive hybrids also have our worst mileage during the coldest weather as battery technologies available today are much less efficient when they are cold. I take about a 3 MPG hit on my Highlander at this time of year, although I can't complain too much about just under 25 mpg in a mid-sized SUV.

Jim,

The biggest reason hybrids take a hit in the winter has nothing to do with the batteries - it's truly the temperature.

Sort of an obvious statement, but hybrids save gas by shutting off the engine - the battery is just a way to power the car while the engine is off. The engine has to be warm enough to shutoff and still come back on instantly when needed. In the winter, the cold temps will cool off the engine faster, so it has to cycle back on more to keep up to operating temps.

FYI, my brother's Highlander Hybrid experiences the same thing as you.

Rob

[James Jaragosky]

It has always been my belief that the gas burned during the combustion cycle never produced its entire energy potential to start with, Are you sure that you are taking energy a loss to the drive train with E90?

I would think that this has been studied to death by someone.
probably cost plenty of tax dollars to do it too.:eek:

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

Electric will be the way to go.

Right now you can run a car on 15 or 20 lead acid deep cycle batteries - that last a very long time.
A pickup with 20 or so Batteries built under the bed would be a worthy thing.

Tesla uses 7000 little lithium batteries but they only last 3 years and lose 20% capacity each year.

http://tinyurl.com/j7gyo
http://tinyurl.com/37aopz
http://tinyurl.com/2p62f5

Chevy S 10 Conversion kit $8-Gees
http://tinyurl.com/2fccgu