Cost of Fuel and running your car

[Darren]

With the announcement of potential fuel protests, how much can Advanced Driving reduce the cost of running your car?

Advanced Drivers are taught to have better vehicle sympathy and use the engine/gear box much better than your average driver.

Are there any figures anywhere which outline rough benefits of savings to the motorist in this area, and certainly how Advanced Driving could help in the recent climate of the £5 gallon.

[AdamW]

I believe if you drive with awareness, fuel saving can be possible.
Acceleration Sense I believe is needed.

I pop on another forum and this is a similar thread that they are discussing at the momment.

http://forum.parkers.co.uk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=19877





Note to admin: I presume I am ok to link to other fourms and sites. If not I apolgise now.

[kevdyas]

Funny you should ask that question Darren.
Two days ago our group contact received a call from the BBC, our regional news programme wondered if they could interview someone about Fuel Economy in Advanced Driving. The actual interview was done yesterday dinner and was aired that evening in a feature about the fuel panic buying and what are the alternatives for filling up, they spoke with someone regarding LPG and then our interview about acceleration sense, tyre pressures etc.

With good acceleration sense the savings cannot just be measured in terms of fuel consumption but covers the use of brakes and also wear and tear on the vehicle.

Kevin.

[James]

I can see that acceleration sense will be a major factor in reducing cunsumption, and also smoother gear changes/mechanical sympathy.

BUT

There are also knock on effects of AD that will cancel out the fuel saved here. What about the increased fuel consumption of making good progress, i.e using more acceleration to reach the speed limit, using acceleration to balance the vehicle round bends, keeping revs high when planning and carrying out overtake(s)... e.t.c.

I know every AD'er drives differently and there are many who keep revs low believing that fuel economy and tyre wear are major factors in advanced driving. But then there are others who believe in being in the powerband (high revs) and making optimum progress are equally as important.

How much fuel, overall between the range, do you think we are actualy saving (or wasting as the case may be)?

[ScoobyChris]

I'd rather enjoy driving that worry about fuel consumption, but i can confirm that since my RoSPA training my progress has increased and my fuel consumption has remained the same so I guess advanced driving has improved the amount of fuel I use.

If fuel was being rationed, my style would change and I'd like to think I could drive more economically

Chris

[GS]

'Advanced Driving' means different things to different people. I often work with HGV users. 'Advanced Driving' to them involved using the 4 S's to help improve not only their safety record, but also the running costs of the business. Less time off for servicing and regularly reducing their fuel bills by 10 to 15%. Not bad when your fleet of vehicles are getting about 9 or 10 mpg and covering well over 100,000 miles per year.

[TripleS]

If the objective is fuel economy, it seems to me that the most rewarding aspects are a smooth driving style, minimising the use of brakes, slowing early for red traffic lights and trying to avoid coming to a complete halt, and same at roundabouts - try to blend in without stopping.

I'm still uncertain about whether it is best to accelerate gently up to your cruising speed, and taking quite a while to reach it, or to accelerate more strongly for a shorter period. Maybe it depends on the particular model of car.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[nuster100]

My mpg is worse now than it was before I joined RoSpA, Yes, I use more acceleration sense, but it is canceled out by more positive acceleration out of hazards and in nsl sections of road.

Jay

[ScoobyChris]

I'm still uncertain about whether it is best to accelerate gently up to your cruising speed, and taking quite a while to reach it, or to accelerate more strongly for a shorter period. Maybe it depends on the particular model of car.

On my TDCI, I've noticed that giving it some beans and then using "overrun" results in much better fuel economy than gently accelerating up to speed. I put this down to the fact that the car puts negligible fuel in the engine under a very light throttle, whereas it will be using quite a bit getting up to speed.

Chris

[ScoobyChris]

My mpg is worse now than it was before I joined RoSpA, Yes, I use more acceleration sense, but it is canceled out by more positive acceleration out of hazards and in nsl sections of road.

That's a very good point .... pre-RoSPA, I had no problem driving positively which may explain my mpg! What I found though was that I was slowing down too much approaching hazards and then having to give it more acceleration coming out of them. Now I've got my positioning better, I can safely carry more speed through the hazard

Chris

[waremark]

It would take an enormous improvement in consumption to offset the fuel used in advanced driver training. Since I go driving for the pleasure of doing so, and choose cars for performance rather than economy, it would seem somewhat hypocritical to worry much about my fuel consumption! Having said that, I find that the greatest influence on my average consumption is the length of my journeys, with longer journeys diluting the effect of the high consumption warm-up phase. On high speed roads, I find that changing my cruising speed by a few mph seems to make a significant difference to consumption - I notice the reduction in consumption when the road is more congested.

I too am uncertain about the level of acceleration to use for economical driivng. A DSA paper on Ecosafe driving (now assessed in the ADI Part 2 driving test, and soon to be assessed in novice tests) says: 'Select the highest suitable gear as soon as possible, without causing the engine to labour'. I prefer to see a driver accelerate in a more positive way, but as others have said I am not convinced this uses significantly more fuel. The other advice given in the same DSA paper is in line with Advanced Driving.

I find that the official fuel consumption figures published for cars are always over-optimistic. I believe that the official tests take a long time to accelerate up to speed, and this may be a factor. Does anyone have more information about these tests and why the overall consumption inidicated is so optimistic?

[crr003]

Does anyone have more information about these tests and why the overall consumption inidicated is so optimistic?

I had a quick look into how it's calculated and it seems odd.
Urban - max speed 31 mph, average speed 12 mph. Over a distance of 2.5 miles.
Extra urban - max speed 75 ( ), average speed 39. Over a distance of 4.3 miles.
Combined is the average, weighted on distance.

[TripleS]

It would take an enormous improvement in consumption to offset the fuel used in advanced driver training. Since I go driving for the pleasure of doing so, and choose cars for performance rather than economy, it would seem somewhat hypocritical to worry much about my fuel consumption! Having said that, I find that the greatest influence on my average consumption is the length of my journeys, with longer journeys diluting the effect of the high consumption warm-up phase. On high speed roads, I find that changing my cruising speed by a few mph seems to make a significant difference to consumption - I notice the reduction in consumption when the road is more congested.

I too am uncertain about the level of acceleration to use for economical driivng. A DSA paper on Ecosafe driving (now assessed in the ADI Part 2 driving test, and soon to be assessed in novice tests) says: 'Select the highest suitable gear as soon as possible, without causing the engine to labour'. I prefer to see a driver accelerate in a more positive way, but as others have said I am not convinced this uses significantly more fuel. The other advice given in the same DSA paper is in line with Advanced Driving.

I find that the official fuel consumption figures published for cars are always over-optimistic. I believe that the official tests take a long time to accelerate up to speed, and this may be a factor. Does anyone have more information about these tests and why the overall consumption inidicated is so optimistic?

Making maximum use of high gears seems to have been the standard advice for the economy seeker for a very long time, but it might now not be the best advice for certain modern cars. Perhaps that needs more careful checking in particular cases.

As for the official fuel consumption figures - I seem to find I've usually done better than that. Maybe you need some lead-free boots, Mark?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[ScoobyChris]

I find that the official fuel consumption figures published for cars are always over-optimistic. I believe that the official tests take a long time to accelerate up to speed, and this may be a factor. Does anyone have more information about these tests and why the overall consumption inidicated is so optimistic?

Aren't these achieved on a rolling road in a warehouse somewhere so thing like wind resistance, driving style, hills, etc are not factors? There was a feature on 5th Gear I think a year of so back, but my memory isn't what it once was...

.... or maybe it is, which is the problem

Chris

[waremark]

Dave's comment has made me think again about my experience compared with official consumption figures. I just checked and found the official composite figure for my M3 is 21.1 mpg. I once got the indicated average comsumption up to 33 - all on motorway, at a law abiding speed - and I generally get better than 21. That is, if the fuel computer is accurate, I never bother to check the accuracy of the computer.