By Keith Hebert, Fuel Efficiency Analyst

Send Keith an e-mail. To order a Scangauge, visit here.

No doubt most of you are aware of the US program ‘Cash For Clunkers’, where the taxpayers were subsidizing new car purchases by up to $4500. My take on this is that if there was to be any real, lasting benefit for the environment, it was a poorly executed plan. But it seemingly was meant primarily as a short term economic stimulus, and really, the environmental benefits were just a side dish. True, the MPG of the vehicle purchased were better, with some sources online claiming the average MPG improvement was better than 50%.

But for me, it’s even doubtful that the ‘economic stimulus’ will have worked in the end analysis. There was no requirement for the purchased vehicle to be American, or even North American built. Despite this, the popular Toyota Corolla (built in California) was a top choice, but if it were me handing out 3 billon dollars, I would want to know I was getting the best possible value for the money.

In Canada, there was a 2 year program called Eco-Auto Rebate, which was more demanding on the purchaser to buy a very fuel efficient vehicle. Up to $2000 was available, but most qualifying cars and tiny SUVs only qualified for $1000. Also, there was no requirement to turn in a clunker with the federal program. Canadian provinces also had a variety of programs, most notably BC, with a Scrap-it clunker program, and a sales tax rebate, each for up to $2000. This made it possible at one point for the purchaser of a Toyota Prius or smart car to get up to $6000 in total savings.

The idea of rebates though, has to fade away. It’s not sustainable to commit the taxpayer to paying for it all, especially when it just goes onto some mysterious national debt. What’s the real cost at the end of the day? And no one really seems to want to bring this up: If we’re wanting to impact climate change, then it naturally follows that we should see an economic downturn in our traditional sectors of oil, gas and automobiles. Reducing consumption is going to impact the economy. I have no issue being down 10%. 40% was a bit steep all at once, but some reduction is to be expected if we want a sign that we’re making any progress.

Governments really have done little for such a long time, mostly by not requiring improvement in fleet fuel economy averages, that it’s no surprise they roll out quick fix ideas. But, with the USA now mandating improved mpg from the automobile producers, I have some optimism that we’re moving in the right direction. Government needs to support the research and developement of advanced vehicle technologies. And, what’s more, taxing inefficiency should also be considered. BC has the carbon tax, which applies to gasoline and diesel purchases… I think this is a model that North America should consider carefully, and implement properly.

We can’t lay blame solely on the government for a lack of fuel efficient vehicles on our shore, but they deserve a hefty chunk for sure.

Thanks for stopping by.

It was four years ago today that I set out from Victoria, BC on the 100 MPG Challenge. Over the next month, I’m going to share what I’ve learned about fuel economy issues.

By Keith Hebert, Fuel Efficiency Analyst

Send Keith an e-mail. To order a Scangauge, visit here.

It was 4 years ago that I embarked across Canada in a diesel smart car for over 30 days and 10,000 miles on the 100 MPG Challenge. In addition to allowing the City of Abbotsford to utilize my smart car for promoting the One Tonne Challenge via a full wrap with colourful graphics, I also set up this site to promote greater awareness of how automobiles impact climate change.

Since then, the ScanGauge fuel economy computer, and the term ‘hypermiling’ have taken many fuel economy enthusiasts, dare I say professionals, on quite the ride. I’ve even landed one or two jobs as a fuel analyst for large trucking companies, helping shave millions of dollars off the annual fuel bill. My current employer is Van Kam Freightways in Surrey, BC.

Beyond this, we’ve had $150 per barrel oil prices, near collapse of some automotive companies, and a mad race towards electric cars. North America had high hopes for new diesel models, but we’re still waiting. Presidents and almost-Presidents have made their mark on the world too, conveniently or, well, you know…

So really, where does this leave us in 2009 and beyond?

In the coming month, I’m going to share my experiences and thoughts here at 100mpg.ca and onehundredmpg.com.

Thanks for checking in!

Statistics Canada released a new report on August 14th detailing the continued growth of gasoline sales in Canada since 2002. You can read the summary, or the full version.

I’ve read the full report, and here were the main points that stood out:

1) Canadians have been partly shielded from higher gasoline price increases due to the strengthening Canadian dollar
2) Canadians have enjoyed a 35% increase in disposable income since 2002
3) New vehicle prices have actually decreased

While gasoline prices have risen significantly, the increase would have been almost twice as much without the rise in the Canadian dollar. Because of the integrated North American market for gasoline, the rising exchange rate has dampened the price increase for consumers in Canada. Gas prices in Canada have risen 84% from 2002 through May 2008, versus a 176% hike in the US. This gap is mostly explained by the 57% rise in the value of the loonie against the US dollar. The slower rate of increase in gasoline prices in Canada relative to the US represents a saving to consumers of nearly $30 billion, the equivalent of 3.2% of personal disposable income.

Not surprisingly, the combination of higher prices and increased gasoline consumption has raised the portion of expenditures consumers allocate to gasoline. Last year, Canadians spent 3.6% of their disposable income on gasoline, up from 2.9% in 2002. In the first quarter of 2008, this rose again to 3.8%, compared with its previous record high of 3.3% in 1982 and 1983. Still, the increase was more gradual than the abrupt hike in 1980, allowing households time to adjust.

The increase in spending on gasoline since 2002 was less than the drop in income devoted to purchasing autos, from 6.2% to 5.3%. The drop for autos entirely reflects lower prices, as Canadians increased vehicle purchases over the last six years. As well, nominal disposable incomes have grown by 35% from 2002 through the first quarter of 2008, mostly as rising employment has tightened the labour market.

The report is correct to conclude that Canadians have been slow to change their fuelish ways, but it does point to reduced sales of larger vehicles in early 2008 as a sign that change has started.

With fuel hitting $1.50 a litre in July across the country, people have noticed. Yes, oil prices have retreated, but so has the Canadian dollar. If the dollar continues to fall, Canadians shouldn’t expect much of a drop from the current average of $1.35. You can learn more about historical fuel prices in Canada by visiting here. If you are interested in US data, visit here.

The future of energy prices is certain - prices will continue to rise. Carbon taxes and offsetting, supply issues, demand - all of these will have an effect. The average Canadian is going to be impacted, but can reduce the impact by adopting fuel efficient driving techniques and/or purchasing a more fuel efficient vehicle. Still, this isn’t the whole picture. We need to rethink the way we live and commute, as perpetual growth is not sustainable. We will need to learn how to live with retreating economic growth, by adjusting our expectations, or better yet, by adopting different values.

In my original post about hypermiling the Ford Escort with an automatic transmission, I mentioned about setting out to beat the NRCAN highway fuel economy rating for the entire trip, with a goal of 5.7 L/100 km overall. How did I do?

3143 total kms
184.7 total litres

5.88 L/100 km
48 mpg imperial
40 mpg US

The car is rated for 6.3 L/100 kms on the highway, which I beat by 7%. I fell slightly short of my intended goal - there was a bit more city driving in the trip than I expected - but I’m happy enough with the result. The Scangauge was a huge help. Cruise control would have made a difference.

I’m not a big fan of automatic transmissions. You have less control over the car. My diesel smart car actually has a manual transmission with an electronically controlled clutch, and that helps me achieve 100 mpg on longer trips.

Still, even with any auto tranny, it’s driver behaviour that most impacts the fuel economy. Had I driven faster or more aggressively, I would easily have landed 7 L/100 km trip overall, resulting in an extra $50.00 of fuel cost.

Translate this for a family minivan or small SUV. $100 extra for trip. Or a larger SUV, pickup - perhaps $150 or more…

You don’t have to have a hybrid to save fuel. Just drive smarter.

Be sure to check out my article Hypermiling for better fuel economy for other useful information.

Contact me by e-mail with any comments.

To order a Scanguage, visit here.

Without a second thought on my part, we pushed on from Burns Lake Sunday evening to Venderhoof, then Prince George, Quesnel, Williams Lake… and all the way home to Abbotsford. The fuel economy for many of these segments was outstanding. Even through the Fraser Canyon, I managed some town to town numbers as low as 4.9 L/100 km. The canyon is a favourite drive of mine, and at night, there is little traffic save for some highway trucks and the occasional traveller.

Having been cut short on the previous tank, I had to fill in Hope, but it was the best tank of the trip by far, taking us 864 kms:

August 18, AM
Burns Lake to Hope
Fuel economy: 5.4 L/100 km / 52 mpg imperial / 44 mpg US
distance travelled: 864 kms
fuel consumed: 46.684 litres
maximum speed: 110 kmh
average speed: 80 kmh
Fuel cost for trip: $63.44

I made extensive use of coasting both in and our of gear, and through the Canyon, used the slow lanes and allowed the car to slow down uphill, rather than burning 50% or more fuel to maintain speed. And despite these hypermiling techniques, the average speed was the highest of the trip - 80 kmh / 50 mph.

The return trip from Prince Rupert began Saturday morning, and included a stop 100 kms north of Terrace at the Anhluut’ukwsim Laxmihl Angwinga’asanskwhl - Nisga’a Provincial Park. Highway 113 is now paved all the way, and this is a MUST SEE. We took a guided tour up to the volcano that erupted over 200 years ago, and took the lives of some 2000 Nisga’a. NRCAN has a detailed description of the historical volcanic activity here. Again, this is a ‘must see’, and you should visit the Nisga’a Tourism website for more details and to book your guided tour, which is a mere $40.00 for a wonderful 4 hours. Our guides were Fred Tate and Vincent Scott.

After staying in Terrace Saturday night, we headed out late Sunday morning. I didn’t have much success in getting the Scangauge to show under 6.0 for most segments, despite some careful driving. Had to fuel up in Burns Lake, some 50 kms short of my aim. One of the biggest drawbacks of the auto transmission is the slightly unpredictable downshifts you have to be wary of. And without cruise control, it’s a very noticeable workout for the right foot, feathering the accelerator, trying to keep the car in top gear at as low an RPM as possible. Anyway, that’s the task at hand… and I still managed to beat the NRCAN rating:

August 17, PM
Prince Rupert to Burns Lake
Fuel economy: 6.22 L/100 km / 45 mpg imperial / 38 mpg US
distance travelled: 722 kms
fuel consumed: 44.965 litres
maximum speed: 111 kmh
average speed: 71 kmh
Fuel cost for trip: $63.81

No doubt an extra litre per 100 kms would be experienced by any other driver without the Scanguage fuel economy computer, resulting in an extra 7 litres of fuel being burnt and making the trip cost $11.00 extra.

It’s Friday now in Prince Rupert, where even after nearly two months since the longest day of the year, the sun still sets at 9 pm. We took a tour today out to Dundas Island and back… here’s some of the mammals we saw…

I filled up the Escort again Thursday afternoon, but not until after we’d done some local driving, and impacted the fuel economy a bit more. Vanderhoof to Smithers had the tank starting at 6.0, but it was Terrace to Rupert that really didn’t help; the best I could coax out of the auto tranny sedan was a 6.3

August 14, PM
Vanderhoof to Prince Rupert
Fuel economy: 6.22 L/100 km / 45 mpg imperial / 38 mpg US
distance travelled: 739 kms
fuel consumed: 45.976 litres
maximum speed: 100 kmh
average speed: 67 kmh
Fuel cost for trip: $63.86

Still, the NRCAN rating for the car is 6.3 on the highway, so all things considered - like the headwind all he way from the Hazletons - I think I’ll do better on the return trip, and drag the overall number back down.

In other news, StatsCan just released a new report, Over a barrel? Canada and the rising cost of energy, and this will likely rekindle the discussion about our fuelish ways. The full feature article can be found here. I hope to give it a good review by Tuesday and offer up my thoughts on it.

We departed Abbotsford Friday night, and drove to Smithers more or less non-stop, save for an hour rest along the way when the fog was thick. The real challenge with the automatic transmission is keeping the engine RPM low enough to avoid the heavy consumption, especially uphill. Feathering the accelerator took some work, but I was able to keep the kickdown to a minimum, and stayed at 5.7 for most segments. I even managed a 5.4 between Cache Creek and Williams Lake.

The Scangauge no doubt made all the difference between getting 5.7 versus what likely would have been 6.7 L/100 km. One really important trick when traffic allows, is to allow the vehicle to slow down a bit up the hills, while maintaining as steady an engine load as possible. Essentially, if you’re looking at the Scangauge, you’re wanting to see the instantaneous fuel consumption stay pretty constant. If I were trying to maintain speed, the Scanguage would show 15 L/100, but in letting the car slow down a bit, it would stay around 9 L/100 - a significant difference.

Here is a screen shot of the Scangauge taken between Prince George and Vanderhoof. (Notice the ‘Add-a-gauge’ called TRP, which is the fuel economy for the current trip. Below that is LHK (litres per 100 km), which is the instantaneous fuel economy. I prefer to have both of these on the display at any given time.)

We filled the car in Vanderhoof Saturday morning, after driving 818 kms on one tank:

August 9, AM
Abbotsford to Vanderhoof
Fuel economy: 5.75 L/100 km / 49 mpg imperial / 41 mpg US
distance travelled: 818 kms
fuel consumed: 47.051 litres
maximum speed: 110 kmh
average speed: 77 kmh
Fuel cost for trip: $66.06

With a goal of beating the NRCAN number by 10%, I was ‘close enough’. Just shy of 100 ‘passenger’ mpg. Headwinds after Vanderhoof have the next tank starting off at roughly 6.0 L/100 km, so I may have some trouble keeping 5.7 as an average. We’ll be in Prince Rupert by Wednesday, where I will fill again and have the next report.

The rubber will hit the road on August 9th, quite literally, as my wife and I venture out to northern BC on a hypermiling mission. This time however, we won’t be taking the 100 mpg diesel smart car. We will be taking a 1997 Ford Escort sedan, powered by a 2.0 litre gasoline engine, with a 4 speed automatic transmission. We will have a Scangauge Fuel Economy Computer along for the ride, to help motivate a low appetite for fuel.

According to NRCAN’s Fuel Consumption Ratings website, the Ford Escort is capable of 6.3 L/100km on the highway. I’m going to set a conservative goal ahead of time - and try to beat that by at least 10% for the entire trip, which would mean getting 5.7 L/100 km, or 50 mpg imperial. For my US friends, the car is (now) rated for 31 mpg on the highway, although it used to be 34 mpg. I’m looking for at least 41 mpg US, which would be higher than any of the cars reporting at fueleconomy.gov.

This should probably be pretty easy right? I’ll be travelling with my wife Cynthia and a full complement of luggage, but thankfully, no roof racks. The car has A/C, which will be used sparingly.

The plan is to go from Abbotsford to Smithers in one day, then to Prince Rupert, and then return. We should see a minimum of 3000 kms of road, and roughly 170 litres of gasoline. I’m not going to modify the car in any way, except I’ll run with a bit higher tire pressure and if I’m really into it, I’ll put a strip of ‘vortex generators’ on the roof to see if I can reduce the aerodynamic drag. (I’m in the process of testing these kinds of items, and hope to make a case for using aftermarket aerodynamic devices at Coastal Pacific Xpress on the highway trucks. We spend $1 million a week on fuel.)

We will be hypermiling on this trip, which means driving the speed limit, anticipating traffic flow, coasting when practical (engine ON, foot OFF the accelerator, either in or our of N depending on situation), and keeping the foot off the brake pedal… I will be reviewing some specific automatic transmission strategies from ecomodder and cleanmpg, to see what others have learned and have to share. Between all of that, and by using the Scangauge, I’m pretty sure Cynthia and I can better the NRCAN fuel consumption rating by 10%. The car is running well, has had a recent oil change, and has 175,000 kms on it.

We’ll post some details while on the road.

Stay tuned…

I’ve been asked a few times if I actually need a Scangauge. Some people have thought that owning an already fuel efficient vehicle would negate the value of such an investment. Not the case… Having a fuel economy computer like the Scangauge during The 100 MPG Challenge would have yielded better fuel economy results.

In my 30+ day drive from Victoria to Labrador and back, I managed 3.63 L/100 km, but the target was actually 3.5… and with a Scangauge, I think I could have come in at 3.3 - a whole 10% better. Knowing the engine load on hills and having access to instant fuel consumption readouts would have enabled changes, and effected better performance.

Well, all that aside…. if you missed it, you can hear the CBC Hypermiling interview from July 28th, here. (Warning - It is a large 21 mb file, best to save it and then open in iTunes perhaps.) You might also like to visit cleanmpg to learn more about hypermiling.