ETCG1: Fuel efficency vs running costs

[HAnilsen]

Modern cars are a lot more fuel efficient than older, and many people tend to buy new cars because of that. However, it seems like some fuel efficient designs has made the cars less reliable and more costly to repair, so you might be paying more than you would save in fuel. Many designs would only save you money if the fuel would cost something like $100 a gallon.

Let’s have an example. Modern BMW’s has an electronic coolant pump which can be turned off when not needed and thereby reduce drag on the engine which reduces fuel consumption. However, a new pump costs around $400-500, and that before the labour costs and the time you’ll be without a car. My old Toyota as a mechanical coolant pump that’s driven by the alternator belt, and after 15 years it’s still running strong. And for my car it’s around $50 for a new OEM pump from Toyota, so it isn’t that big deal when it eventually goes bad. I can probably come with a lot of examples, but I’ll leave it with just this. And hybrid cars.

Me, I’d rather have a reliable car that uses a bit more fuel (and is also more fun to drive), than a fuel efficient car that costs a lot in maintenance and repairs. Another thing isn’t just the fuel costs, but also the carbon footprint, which we’re so concerned about these days. New parts has to be made, packaged and shipped around the world, which takes energy and leaves a carbon footprint. If that exceeds what the design would save, then the engineers have failed in making a greener design. And as I mentioned, the time and money being without a car.

Topic

[Gary]

A modern SUV(2000s era) doesn’t even get better mileage than my 41 year old 7000 pound truck with massive all iron 454 cubic inch motor. By SUV I mean a true SUV like a Suburban, Tahoe, Bronco, Durango etc. My truck gets 14 MPG(secondaries closed), maybe it’s the manual tranny B)

[EricTheCarGuy]

I’ve actually touched on this a bit in these 2 videos.

It does sound like you’re looking for something quite specific however, but in truth, some vehicles used to get better fuel economy with the older systems. Some vehicles used to be a lot lighter as well which also comes into play.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[Flemming Jacobsen]

HAnilsen,

I would tend to agree. Just look at the dreaded EGR valves, made to make cars pollute less. Had less then a starling reputation at first since it caused some of the first cars with it installed to really coke up unless they regularly got the stick. Have driven several cars where the EGR valve gave in because it got coked up, all for the sake of the environment. You would think something that was good for the environment ought to be made more reliable or people would opt to remove it, or simply install a steel plate to simply block it off.

[Nick Warner]

EGR is not just for emissions. By allowing some cooled exhaust gases into the combustion chamber at part throttle cruising it reduces pinging, which lower octane gasoline would tend to do on cars that ran leaded gas. The early emissions systems were bad. It was an attempt to meet the new federal laws and they needed some time to get it right. By studying what was happening to these vehicles they were able to improve on the design and now we have cars that can meet emissions, start easily in cold weather and idle smoothly yet make more power than the engines of old. The technology and knowledge base were finally able to catch up to allow us to make good power with less emissions.

My Snap On rep has a saying that I think is perfect at explaining this. “If the Wright brothers could’ve built a 747 the first time around, they would have.”

[Author]

Replies