The New World Order is REAL and tyranny is upon us. Time is short. Visit infowars.com.

END THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Our Republic is Falling

I dunno, it's 4:30 and i've been up since 9, let's see if someone who knows that they're talking about can field this one.

What are gallons?!? I mean it's almost 2005 for crying out loud!!!

"BADGES?!?... We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badges!!!"

that's right! SI for lyfe dawg!

anyway, i might be taking a total wild jab at this but the engineers might have calculated how large a tank will be optimal for a given car.

like the first reply said, you may have a large tank, but that would just weigh you down and cause you to eat more gas while lugging it around, therefore not optimized.

or if the tank is too small, you'll save on weight, thus easier on gas, but you sacrafice on how long you can drive before each fillup.

so i think the tank sizes now are just what they calculated to be the longest distance you can travel with the largest tank of gas you can carry..or or sorts. lol...

dont' take my word for it though, i'm jsut thinking of the stuff i learned in first year calc bout optimization and all lol.

I would think the added convenience of less frequent fillups would be a great selling point.

I think I've heard that it's some sort of federal regulation perhaps, but what's that based on? I just don't see this being a simple matter of calculation - it seems like it could be an arbitrary thing.

The New World Order is REAL and tyranny is upon us. Time is short. Visit infowars.com.

END THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Our Republic is Falling

Small cars have less physical space in the rear, and even though adding capacity to hold a few more gallons may not add extra weight, it would definitely cut into other areas such as trunk space. And conversely, larger cars simply have more room to accommodate a large trunk and a large fuel tank.

As an example though, look at how much trunk space was affected in the GTO by fuel tank changes...

Hmmm, I'm not sure if you have done your calculations lately on a small to mid sized car but if you did you would be quite surprised at how much of a difference there is in driving a full tank around for no reason. Hey, there must be a reason as to why airlines only place the required fuel on board for their flight and why they don't just fill'er up.

For sake of not hurting brain cells lets just say that one litre of gas weighs 1 kilogram (it's close enough). A full 55 litre tank in a Golf/Jetta is going to weigh 55 kilos. Now if you are just farting around town and never drive more than 50 Kms in day, there is no need to binge fill your tank. 20 litres is more than enough for four days unless you are driving a VR6.

If you don't think that 35 kilos makes a difference then take it along for the ride.

I think the real reason behind the tank size is to match to the driver's projected bladder size. The TDI's are excluded of course.

Modified by VR6-DasLightTheWay at 2:36 AM 12-20-2004

"BADGES?!?... We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badges!!!"

i loveded it! hahahaha:D

and i don't know bout the weight difference then, i'm working towards an astrophysics degree....we work with things on a larger scale where something's weight to the magnitude of 28 is considered average!

Modified by munkey at 11:13 AM 12-20-2004

Its definitely a good point, I find that my almost 500mile range on a full tank(17-18galons) is quite nice, but then most of the time my blader needs to empty before that .

And there is another good reason why people should not drink and drive.

"BADGES?!?... We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badges!!!"

On some vehicles - such as the Saturn VUE - space is at such a premium that it uses a "saddle" tank - large reservoirs on either side of the rear drive shaft with a "booster" pump in one side to feed the other.

Weight, aerodynamics, and crash-worthiness are also other factors. An extra fifty pounds of fuel will have a mileage penalty, and in an era where front and rear fascias are redesigned to increase mileage by as little as .2 MPG this makes a difference. A larger tank will also disrupt airflow under the car, which has recently become a concern for manufacturers. Lastly, a larger tank is more likely to be ruptured by intrusion from an exhaust pipe or lower control arm during a rear-side or back-end collision, and in the event of a breach of the tank there is more fuel to be spilled and possibly ignite.

But the Honda Civic VX had a smaller fuel tank than other Honda Civics for some reason.

Thank you for having common sense.

I figured that answer was pretty much a given...

^^^ So true!

"BADGES?!?... We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badges!!!"

i think the largest determining factor for tank size is physical limitations, not range.

given that gas is 6lbs/gallon, we have 84lbs in a 14 gal. tank, 258 lbs in a 43 gal. tank. a lot of weight to drive around, even if it's being used up.

And at that density, an extra 5 gal or so would significantly increase the range of most vehicles. I'm sorry, but 30lbs really makes virtually no difference to fuel economy.

The New World Order is REAL and tyranny is upon us. Time is short. Visit infowars.com.

END THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Our Republic is Falling

I doubt it's that much, but that's conceivable. For steady speed driving (highway), an extra 100lbs in a typical 2800-3500lb car these days might drop mileage perhaps .3mpg at most I imagine - just the increase of rolling resistance. For greater city driving, it will of course be more because of the extra energy spent on acceleration. Still not enough to amount to 5mpg though, I'm sure.

The New World Order is REAL and tyranny is upon us. Time is short. Visit infowars.com.

END THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Our Republic is Falling

I'd chime in more but all this talk of gal and lbs is all Chinese or Greek to me and oddly enough they also would not understand since they use litres and kilograms.

6 billion people on this planet and only one country with only 285 million still uses an out dated measuring system.

"BADGES?!?... We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badges!!!"

Quote, originally posted by matt007 »

I have no idea how tall I am in centimeters or how much I weigh, although I could guestimate with some mental math, I still feel much more comfortable being 6'2" and 195lbs than 187.96cm and 88.45kg (wtf? )

It's so funny, because it's just a matter of familiarity. Once you use either system for just a little while, it gives a context for all those numbers, and then those funny metric numbers start to have relevance. Saying I way 88kg seems meaningless to most Americans. Then consider the typical weights for context, like (just inventing info here) say women are typically 40-50kg, and men are typically 70-90kg. Suddenly, it doesnt become so weird anymore. It's just different numbers - that familiarity we feel comes from experience with the system that gives us a "feel" for what the numbers mean. There is nothing remarkably different about the metric system - it really is actually a lot smarter/better over all. Too bad that initial reaction by Americans is practically no better than if they were to be the first to read an extraterrestrial language.

The New World Order is REAL and tyranny is upon us. Time is short. Visit infowars.com.

END THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Our Republic is Falling

Quote, originally posted by matt007 »

I have no idea how tall I am in centimeters or how much I weigh, although I could guestimate with some mental math, I still feel much more comfortable being 6'2" and 195lbs than 187.96cm and 88.45kg (wtf? )

Actually you would be 188cm tall and weigh 88.4kgs. Either way it is far easier to work with decimal points than fractions. Hell, most of you guys already use SI when you check out the ladies and rate them... after all you say she's an 8 or she's 9 and what the hell are you rating her out of... 10 (TEN) and that's the whole basis of SI. So like daylight savings time, change over, get use to it and move on.

Besides you guys with the teenie weenies will be at least able claim yours is 11... cms that is Bwhaaaaa haaa haa

And the fat chicks will feel so much better saying they only weigh 95... kilos that is haaaaahaaa haaaahaaa ha ha ha

Think about bragging to your possie when you tell them you got pulled over doing 215... well yeah that was km/h but still it sounded cool didn't it?

Oh and how easy is this to remember, water freezes at 0c and boils at 100c? That was tough wasn't it?

Ever tried measuring the volume of a subwoofer cabinet that you made out of fibreglass (you know the weird shaped ones)? You would need some fancy assed math to figure that out but with SI all you need is a 1 litre measuring cup and you can figure it out by filling up your sub container one litre at a time until you reach the top. Then you will know what your volume is in litres. Of course you could use a larger 10 litre bucket, etc. if you already have some idea of the volume to speed things up but you get the point, I hope.

"BADGES?!?... We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badges!!!"

Quote, originally posted by JPawn1 »

well, ya know, 47% of all statistics are made up on the spot

No I believe it's closer to 49%

"BADGES?!?... We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badges!!!"

Quote, originally posted by JPawn1 »

well, ya know, 47% of all statistics are made up on the spot

... and 87% of people believe them, whether they're accurate statistics or not!

I think I'll go get my tin foil hat now..

"Did you drive much in the 20th century? Nah, nobody really drove... there was too much traffic"

Think of the possibilities that "Jenny Craig" and other fat farms could market if they came up with special weight loss cars that had HUGE gas tanks.

"BADGES?!?... We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badges!!!"

Quote, originally posted by .je »

A long time ago I worked for a company that made gas tanks and other hollow car parts. The requirement and location comes from your customer, and it a balance of available space for tank, seats, axle, trunk, and anything else in the area, crashworthiness, etc. The customer chooses a volume target based partially on expected range and customer requirement/expectations, which is some of what you were getting at, and partially on space available. The product's intended consumer is part of the decision, ex. a small city car might have less range, but it also infulences how much space you have.

Well there you have it!

Meaning for an extra 30 lbs and 5 gallons, a typical compact/midsize car can go an extra 120-175miles. With a typical range of what, 300-400miles to start? That's a huge gain. And really, 5 gallons isnt that much volume increase over a starting 12-20gallon tank volume, when spread evenly over the tank's space envelope.

Considering that increased range is a big selling/marketing point of diesels and hybrids, one has to wonder...

Anyhow, was thinking of this again today and don't think we ever really got a solid answer.


Modified by RogueTDI at 11:58 PM 2-6-2007

The New World Order is REAL and tyranny is upon us. Time is short. Visit infowars.com.

END THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Our Republic is Falling

The average person is an idiot.

He/She will think their car is a gas hog if it costs them $50 to fill the tank (when their last car cost them $35) even though they get more range out of it.

A 300-400 mile range has been deemed acceptable by consumers. Adding more fuel creates packaging issues. Adding more fuel would not matter to most consumers.

Exactly, what about the people that NEVER fill their tank? There's more than you think.

My statistics (gathered from a poll of co-workers) shows that 86% of drivers just drop $20 at a time in their tanks.

I was suprised to see such a high % considering these people range in age from about 25 to 55 years old and I haven't NOT filled completely since I started working 18 years ago.

I will admit that I didn't count the two or three times I've pumped just enough obscenely priced gas to get to a more resonably priced station.

Modified by onebadbug at 7:59 AM 2-7-2007

ban OneBadBug!