Brake fluid in power steering?

On Tue, 28 May 2019 16:39:26 +0100

Presumably you have to push it off a cliff first though?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, I just use the pedal everyone seems to have forgotten about, it's called an accelerator. Nowadays everyone sits waiting at junctions for a gap the size of a bus so they can pull out slowly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Commander Kinsey wrote:

Prick.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes Miss Daisy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They break less often than auto gearboxes.

It isnt always obvious how much worse the mpg is when you arent driving efficiently.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/23/2019 01:17 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

I guess I don't have a decent car. I find my fuel consumption increases quite a bit when driving a 80 rather than 65. Throw in headwinds and mountains and there is more variability. It's a confirmation of why the gas gauge is dropping rapidly. I usually fuel at about 300 miles but if the consumption is up I plan an earlier stop. In the western US there aren't filling stations behind every bush.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Guess my truck isn't "decent" either - and nor was my Taurus. The new Kia has the built-in trip computer.
I have a scanguage in the truck. I have a totalizer I was going to put in the plane - measures gallons or liters per hour - not per mile - as well as total amount consumed but is no good on a fuel injected engine with bypass.
No OBD2 on the fiat 600D so can't use Scanguage on it. I may hook up the totalizer to monitor furl since the guage is notoriously in-accurate -- - -
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/24/2019 12:10 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:

Trade it in on a Fiat 500... like the New Beetle and the Mini-Cooper Fiat seems to have taken what was a cheap little car and turned it into an expensive little car. My Yaris is closer to the original idea of the Cooper than the nostalgia version.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Parked the 600D beside a "new mini" the other day and the mini looked lioke a cadillac!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I did some measurements in my Golf TDI auto. Anything up to 55mph was equally efficient, after that I lost 5mpg per 10mph. And of course trying to keep at a constant speed without braking and accelerating a lot helps massively. The odd result that contradicts what most people say is that it was just as efficient driving slowly (eg 20mph in a built up area - as long as it was a continuous 20 and not lots of junctions to stop at - might have been the auto gearbox that helped with that, modern autos have a torque convertor so it's always in the optimum gear, sometimes inbetween gears).
I don't understand why they don't make cars with a better range, just add a bigger tank! Even in the UK I find it irritating that I have to refuel quite often. When I had a car that ran on LPG it was very annoying as there were hardly any stations with it. Wait till we all have electric cars that only go just over 100 miles before needing a half hour charge, everybody's going to be sat around a lot, we'll need more cafes....
I just refuel every time I spot it down to a quarter full. Obviously if I was somewhere with a lack of fuelling stations, I'd fill up at half full.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28/05/2019 18:30, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Above that speed aero effects become more dominant.

People with manual typically choose a gear and stay there. An auto will use lower revs until the driver presses the pedal. Internal friction of an engine is about 3kW/1000rpm so if a driver chooses 2000rpm but the auto chooses 1500rpm that's roughly a gallon over 20 hours.
I had a TD for a while. Driving on narrow, undulating West Country roads could be more economical than on the flat, despite needing brakes and sometimes more revs. An example of the benefit of pulse modulation (no load/high load) and energy storage (potential energy, in this case).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What people are you referring to? Myself and most people I know will drive in the highest gear they can without the engine struggling. Perhaps if you're in a situation where you'd have to change every 10 seconds, you wouldn't bother and the auto would.

I don't believe you. An engine is less efficient if you place a higher demand on it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/05/2019 16:42, Commander Kinsey wrote:

That's what I meant.

Don't believe it if you don't want to. That is your nature.

That would create the impossible condition of having highest efficiency with no demand at all. And a low gear would be better than a high gear.
Remember my mention of 3kW/1000rpm internal friction? If you ask for 1kW out, the engine has to produce 4kW. Ask for 3kW and it only has to produce 6kW.
Have a look at:- https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid63722 https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/2349/how-can-mpg-be-high-under-low-engine-load
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Only lazy folk drive like that. I change up a gear whenever possible. Unless I need power, I keep the revs below 1500.

Everybody knows it's more economical to drive at a constant speed, and not to stress the engine. You're a cyclist, right? Which do you find easier, a nice steady even pace, or pedalling as hard as you can then freewheeling?

No, I never said there was no lower limit. I find the most economical revs is 1000-1500, which is what an auto does.

No, spinning the engine at 6000rpm is less economical.

This is in agreement with what I'm thinking, that you waste fuel per revs. So it's best to always run the engine at low revs. Your idea of it being more economical to drive on narrow, undulating West Country road doesn't make sense, that's going to require gear changing and revving all the time.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/05/2019 19:31, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Not many people know what they are talking about. Also, what is stress in this context?

Actually, I prefer to cover the boring bits then stop to look at the view.
Anyway, muscles are different to a mechanical engine. With stored energy they can peak at about 1kW for a few seconds but can't replenish at more than about 150W.

When cruising the average consumption is similar to instaneous consumption.
When changing speed or travelling over hilly roads, they are not directly connected. Instantaneous consumption will fluctuate but it doesn't mean that under periods of high consumption the efficiency must be lower.
If going along the flat requires 5kW and the consumption is 40mpg but going uphill at the same speed requires 20kW, then anything above 10mpg means the engine is more efficient. Irrespective of revs deployed. The potential energy then drives the car downhill so the average is restored or improved upon.

...because this would be reducing the load.

You haven't looked at the links.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

From experience I can tell you it's most economical to drive at a constant speed with low revs.

Using it harder.

I was talking about what uses the most energy.

Maybe so, but the same principal applies, using them nowhere near their limit is more efficient.

The simplest thing to consider is, does the engine run more efficiently when pushed hard or treated gently? Running an engine at quarter power all the time, or half power half of the time, which is best? I think you'll find quarter power all the time wins.

It's less economical because of the higher speed inside the engine.

I read what you wrote above, which presumably is the same as the links?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/05/2019 21:28, Commander Kinsey wrote:

>

Then say so rather than using a meaningless term. Look up Young's modulus for the proper definition of mechanical stress.

So was I.

It requires more energy to get to the top of a hill when matching a slower rider.

It's not simpler. You talk of power vs. time. Mpg is energy vs. distance.

>

I have not repeated anything parrot fashion. The links are the only way to show graphs.
Unless you take your fingers out of your ears the conversation is over.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Prior to variable cam timing an engine had a fairly predictable maximum torque RPM - and at that RPM the engine was most efficient at converting fuel to horsepower. Maximim fuel economy was achieved at that rpm in the highest gear that the engine could maintau that RPM not considering aerodynamoc drag. On some efficiently designed cars the efficiency advantage of the engine at that speed overcame the aerodynamic drag penalty. Getting the gearing and the aerodynamics to ballance out was a bit of a trick - Toyota goit it right a few times, and not so good other times. The 1975 Celica GT 5 speed was an example of getting it right. Better than 45MPG at 2800 RPM in 5th gear. At 55MPG you couldn't squease 25MPG out of it.
In 1976 they changed the gearing and the advantage went away.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Surely the answer is to have lots of gears. Which is what a lot of cars are doing nowadays.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/1/2019 10:06 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

I've driven vehicles with 9 or 10 forward speeds. They also has an 1800 rpm redline. You do as lot of shifting...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.