Interesting article about possible changes to come in cars and how we drive them!
This is nothing new. Driving behavior has always been the single biggest improvement for fuel economy. Many of us have stated that many times in this forum.
Agreed, Mike. The interesting part is the changes that might be coming in cars to help drivers become more efficient.
And many people I know don’t WANT to become more efficient.
Nothing you can do for those people. As the “shrinks” always say, first you have to WANT to change! 
I love how fuel efficient my Suburban is. I drive a 1982 GMC suburban. I have the 6.2 diesel, original motor and still get 31 mpg doing 55. I’ll take that and its safety over a new Toyota Prius. I love having such a large and yet fuel efficient truck.
I have the 6.2 diesel, original motor and still get 31 mpg doing 55.
That’s almost a 100% increase over the stated EPA estimates.
“… the best way to increase fuel efficiency is to adjust the nut holding the steering wheel.”
Ain’t that the truth!
I noticed a decline in fuel economy recently. I was able to improve my fuel economy by leaving earlier for work, so I wouldn’t be rushed, and by taking the scenic route home on the motorcycle.
(Notice I call it MY fuel economy, not my car’s fuel economy, or my motorcycle’s fuel economy.)
MikeInNH, the EPA estimates are for real world driving. Nobody drives 55 MPH on the interstate anymore. I am willing to bet a Prius would get at least 55 MPG if it were only driven 55 MPH.
Whitey - I agree that real world driving can give different results. But a 100% increase is stretching it pretty far.
Mike - the EPA site list the highway mpgs for the diesel at 22:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/1621.shtml
I AM A HUMAN (bleep). I LIVE IN THE US OF A (bleep). I AM NOT A ROBOT (bleep). I HAVE NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE (bleep). ALL OF MY THOUGHTS AND DECISIONS ARE CONTROLLED BY THE MASTER PLANNERS (bleep). ENJOYABLE VEHICLES HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO BE CONTRADICTORY TO THE MASTER PLAN (bleep). THEREFORE ENJOYABLE VEHICLES ARE NO LONGER PROGRAMMED INTO MY DAY (bleep).
Question: is this a world we want to live in?
Mike - the EPA site list the highway mpgs for the diesel at 22:
The site I looked at showed it as being 16…
Even at a EPA estimate of 22…going to 31 is still a HUGE jump.
I’m with Mike - you’re not getting a 10mpg hike by doing 55 rather than 65 - or in any other way.
Which brings to mind my own thoughts about this. First, its true that the individual driver has a significant impact on MPG. In fact, I tend to drive in all of those ways that are supposed to be better for fuel economy (though nothing like hypermilers). As such, its a fine idea to try to educate people and even install stuff in their cars that helps them keep track of what they are up to in MPG terms.
BUT, the whole “Cars Don’t Waste Fuel. Drivers Waste Fuel” thing is completely bogus. It is a huge overstatement and goes into a long line of things that try to make everyone think that there are no issues in the world that are in any way bigger than individual choice and behavior. It is a prevalent idea in our culture - and a dangerous one. I drive an Escort. It rated for about 34mpg or so, but it is mostly up to me whether I get close to 34 or maybe down around 27-28. But it is not up to me (short of pushing it) that it doesn’t get as high as 40. The same goes for any car. The window of driver control is there. But its way smaller than that headline would like people to believe.
Mike and Cigroller, Go look at the ads and epa estimates on the 1982 suburban. The 82 and 85 are different machines. Also. I have a 31 gallon tank, drove 4 days intown in Aberbeen South Dakota then drove to Mission South Dakota… and still had 5/8ths of a tank. Sorry, but you guys are idiots and don’t have the right info. Thankfully I don’t drive a c10. I drive the k1500. There’s one difference… I also don’t have the 85. I have an 82. And their estimates were varied between 26 and 35 depending on model and equipment package. Thanks! I love proving people wrong. Also, the next time I take a trip, I invite both of you to come along and see the actual mileage I get.
Also, to be credible in your information, please make sure you find the applicable fuel mileage estimates for the correct year AND model. Having the wrong info like you do is not smart. It makes it look like you’re trying too hard to prove me wrong.
If you really want to look at mileage… Here are some posts from other 6.2 drivers that give their ACTUAL mileage in various other 6.2 diesel powered vehicles. Frankly it looks like you guys need to brush up on your info. You might want to check where you learned about diesels at.
“Here are some posts from other 6.2 drivers that give thier ACTUAL milage in various other 6.2 diesel powered vehicles.”
How can you have 6.2 drivers, or 6.2 vehicles??? Do you have 1.5 children? Next, you will be telling us you have 2.824 pets in your home.
Someone is miscalculating wrong…Either the EPA or the users. Most of the vehicles I’ve owned I’ve been able to get better gas mileage then the EPA estimate…but no where near a 50% increase…usually much less then 10%. 10% is just plain huge. Not saying you’re wrong…just that I’m always skeptical when I see things like this that are WAY WAY out of norm.
Frankly the stats above that texases posted are not applicable, and just because I like proving people wrong… I drive 55 on the interstate and don’t give a damn about making people wait. Maybe they’ll realize that being in such a hurry all the time wastes gas. Most vehicles, even the 2012 models, are still designed to get their best mileage between 55 and 65. And if you want to try to prove that statistic wrong, go ahead, I’ve actually checked my stats.
Mike, the EPA estimates are never right, and now they are supposed to be closer than what they were. 30 years ago the milage estimates were grossly underestimated. I invite the EPA to come and check my milage at 55 right now. I invite you to come with me and see how far I can go on the interstate at 55 on 31 gallons of fuel. I gave my real world numbers, and there are the numbers from other drivers that have had the 6.2 diesel. Also, remember, the information given by texases was not even for the 82 model year. Plus the EPA does NOT have the estimates for the 1983 model year or older on thier site. GM actually gave very similar estimates to what I get back in thier advertisements for the 6.2 powered Suburban, Blazer, Jimmy and pickups. Between 26 and 35 miles per gallon. Those were EPA estimates at the time. I get 31. So, if they estimated the same vehicle at 30 and I get 31… How is that a 50% increase? You tell me… Sounds like you still haven’t checked out the right info.
No one on that discussion you linked to is getting better than 22 in a Suburban. One person even says,
"I’ve heard many stories - back in the 70s-80s, and now - about some 6.2s getting 30 MPG and heavy 6.2 trucks with no OD averaging 25 MPG. I simply don’t believe it - if I did, I’d be a damn fool. "
And the EPA mileage was never higher than 23, even for the 1982, and EPA estimates older than 1985 are indeed available on the web if you know where to look.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml
You may have an unusual engine, a statistical outlier, or “the exception that proves the rule.” Count your blessing and be proud, but don’t be rude.
EPA estimates older than 1985 are indeed available.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml