With the approach of the summer driving season and the continuation of high fuel prices, you'll likely see media outlets publishing stories about how to save gas. But do these fuel-saving tips really work?
Well, we tested them to find out. In our Edmunds We Test The Tips Part II article, we used our long-term Buick Enclave, our long-term Toyota Tundra and a Lexus ES 350 to determine what techniques deliver the best improvements in fuel economy. We tested tips such as driving style, tire pressure, running the air-conditioner and lowering a pickup's tailgate.
Obviously, you'll want to read the story if you're interested...
But here's a bit of a teaser: we were able to realize a 38 percent potential improvement in fuel economy in the Enclave. For the Tundra, we got nearly 21 mpg in one test, well above the truck's EPA highway estimate.
Brent Romans, Senior Automotive Editor
ahightower says:
10:55 AM, 03/19/08
Great article, it pretty much mirrors my own findings. I'm playing with a spreadsheet here, and it looks like when we go to the beach this summer, I'll be saving over $50, and it will take less than an hour longer each direction. Surely gas prices will be even higher by then.
And just as importantly as saving money, it's safer and less stressful to just set the cruise on 65 and enjoy the music or conversation, rather than constantly gunning the throttle and jockeying for position for six hours.
chavis10 says:
11:30 AM, 03/19/08
Great article. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
louiswei says:
11:46 AM, 03/19/08
Good and insightful article indeed. Yeah, the gas price is high but I don't think it's high enough (yet!) for me to drive my 300hp sports sedan like a Buick...
aspade says:
12:40 PM, 03/19/08
That is an interesting article but it is very poorly written and difficult to read.
The results are scattered through two pages buried in words about baseline this and percent and relative that.
Data should be presented in a simple table, talk about it somewhere else.
desmolicious says:
01:47 PM, 03/19/08
I don't think I could set the cruise control at 65mph and just drive in SoCal.
Traffic never seems to run that smoothly, it will vary at any given time of day from anything from stopped to 80mph.
No wonder the tests were performed in the central valley.
ahightower says:
04:33 PM, 03/19/08
I agree that a table would have been useful. I suspect they wrote it in the style they did so that they could easily be quoted by those other publications they referred to who are incompetent to perform their own tests.
True, traffic limits your ability to control your speed, but you can still drive less aggressively, even in SoCal. Accelerate and brake gently, don't work so hard to pass people. It amazes me the things people will do to get ahead three spots in line, with 20 million drivers on the road. It won't save you any time at all. And when traffic is flowing, you don't have to go 80 just because others are. I wouldn't go 65 if literally "everyone" was going 80, but that's rarely the case. I try to stay with the flow of traffic generally for safety's sake, but I figure if there are 5 lanes and I'm not in the far left, they can go around me.
chevy598 says:
05:58 PM, 03/19/08
Michigan sounds a lot like SoCal. If you try driving 65mph in the slow lane you'll run into someone going 50mph within a minute. I personaly think it's a lot easier to drive like a mad man (80mph+)on the highway. Driving in the slow lane you're always having to pass people no matter how slow you go. It's hard work trying to save gas.
SubyTrojan says:
06:11 PM, 03/19/08
65 mph on most SoCal freeways = moving chicane
Yes, it's the speed limit on most stretches of SoCal's seldomly uncongested freeways, but it's often a quite a bit slower than the flow of traffic.
karjunkie says:
06:46 AM, 03/20/08
My unscientific observations with our SUV on long highway trips is that maintaining a 65 MPH bogie versus 80 MPH results in significant fuel economy, wheter or not I can maintain the cruise control on because of traffic. At 65 MPH, I get about 24-24.5 MPG, versus 80 MPH which reults in 21 MPG. If I can maintain steady cruising with cruise control, I gain maybe 0.5 MPG at either speed level
thegrocer says:
07:24 AM, 03/20/08
Bed covers (hard or soft) and caps have the same effect as lowering the tail gate in my experience...it also depends on how much time the truck spends on the expressway, too. I never noticed much difference around town, just when I did a lot of highway driving.
brn says:
07:37 AM, 03/20/08
I suspect the lack of a table was because most of the results were antidoctal (sp). If you're willing to accept that, it's not a bad article.
tmanz says:
12:58 PM, 03/20/08
would be interesting to see a similar test done with smaller cars. The biger engines can reallly suck in the gas when pushed but how much do you save with an econo box?
desmolicious says:
01:06 PM, 03/20/08
I wanna see you guys run this test with a Vette Z06 and a Scion XB. Watch in amazement as the 505hp car gets better gas mileage at freeway speeds...
hondacura4 says:
03:56 PM, 03/21/08
"I wanna see you guys run this test with a Vette Z06 and a Scion XB. Watch in amazement as the 505hp car gets better gas mileage at freeway speeds..."
Certainly not rocket science. Big torque + light vehicle + extremely tall 6th gear = good fuel economy.
e34bmwlover says:
07:35 PM, 03/23/08
Nice article, it pretty much confirms my own results. I usually got 22 mpg with my 95 BMW 525i but one time I really concentrated on fuel economy and it was the hardest thing to do- but I got 26mpg(with 50/50 highway/city driving with less than 15 miles each trip.) I don't know much about other cars, but bmw's real time fuel economy gauge is very useful for someone trying to save some gas.
This maybe just an opinion, but I think in regard to fuel econommy; that small econoboxes great for low speed/ city traffic and med/large size sedans are great for high speed cruising. At speeds above 70, small econoboxes struggle hard to overcome the air resistance while mid size/big sedans usually with heavy mass would see lesser effects.