Print PDF
Favorite
Email
Step 4Facilitate coasting
Driving with the engine off provides a couple challenges:
The ignition switch isn't designed for such constant use, but more importantly the power steering and power brakes go out.
(Note: Laws vary from state to state. In CA it is illegal to coast downhill in neutral. It is not illegal to coast with the transmission in gear, but the clutch held in.)
-I installed an electric vacuum pump to run the power brake booster.
These were standard on a number of late 80s American full-size cars, so I was able to pull one from the local wrecking yard. This change removes a drain from the engine (diesels have a belt driven booster pump) and prevents the power brakes from going out whenever I shut the engine. Stopping a 2 1/2 ton truck with just the power of your calf muscle is doable, but can be somewhat challenging.
-I switched to manual steering. This both removes the parasitic drain of the power steering pump from the engine, and means that the steering is not affected by shutting off the engine.
-I wired in a kill switch and remote starter onto the gear shift lever which means I don't need to use the key at all.
The switches I got from the local electronics place are dual purpose: wire them one way and they are momentary open, wire them the other and they are momentary closed. I used one each way, so that one stops fuel to the engine, the other triggers the starter. I mounted them side-by-side in a block of scrap wood, attached to the gear shift with a strip cut out of a steel can lid.
As I had hoped, they definitely make coasting downhill and killing it at red lights much faster, simpler, more precise, and safer, then using the key each time (especially since the ignition on this truck has been very finicky as long as I have had it) which encourages me to do it a lot more often.
If you happen to own a 7th generation (80s) Diesel F-250, and you want to wire in a kill switch or remote starter:
The thick red wire with a green stripe goes to the injector pump (for a kill). Wire the switch normally closed in series with the red wire. Since I didn't have any wire as thick as the one I was tapping into, I used two thinner wires in parallel.
The thin red wire with a blue stripe goes to the ignition relay (for a start). Wire it in parallel to a normally open switch. The other end of the switch goes to 12v positive. Ideally find an accessory (no key off) circuit. Some accessory circuits drop voltage slightly due to their load and therefor aren't strong enough to trigger the relay. I ended up wiring to a constant hot lead, which means the starter can be turned over even with out the key in (not a big deal, because it won't catch)
The ignition switch isn't designed for such constant use, but more importantly the power steering and power brakes go out.
(Note: Laws vary from state to state. In CA it is illegal to coast downhill in neutral. It is not illegal to coast with the transmission in gear, but the clutch held in.)
-I installed an electric vacuum pump to run the power brake booster.
These were standard on a number of late 80s American full-size cars, so I was able to pull one from the local wrecking yard. This change removes a drain from the engine (diesels have a belt driven booster pump) and prevents the power brakes from going out whenever I shut the engine. Stopping a 2 1/2 ton truck with just the power of your calf muscle is doable, but can be somewhat challenging.
-I switched to manual steering. This both removes the parasitic drain of the power steering pump from the engine, and means that the steering is not affected by shutting off the engine.
-I wired in a kill switch and remote starter onto the gear shift lever which means I don't need to use the key at all.
The switches I got from the local electronics place are dual purpose: wire them one way and they are momentary open, wire them the other and they are momentary closed. I used one each way, so that one stops fuel to the engine, the other triggers the starter. I mounted them side-by-side in a block of scrap wood, attached to the gear shift with a strip cut out of a steel can lid.
As I had hoped, they definitely make coasting downhill and killing it at red lights much faster, simpler, more precise, and safer, then using the key each time (especially since the ignition on this truck has been very finicky as long as I have had it) which encourages me to do it a lot more often.
If you happen to own a 7th generation (80s) Diesel F-250, and you want to wire in a kill switch or remote starter:
The thick red wire with a green stripe goes to the injector pump (for a kill). Wire the switch normally closed in series with the red wire. Since I didn't have any wire as thick as the one I was tapping into, I used two thinner wires in parallel.
The thin red wire with a blue stripe goes to the ignition relay (for a start). Wire it in parallel to a normally open switch. The other end of the switch goes to 12v positive. Ideally find an accessory (no key off) circuit. Some accessory circuits drop voltage slightly due to their load and therefor aren't strong enough to trigger the relay. I ended up wiring to a constant hot lead, which means the starter can be turned over even with out the key in (not a big deal, because it won't catch)
| « Previous Step | Download PDFView All Steps | Next Step » |
But one of the most important things we all can do is driver slower, it saves fuel and the most important thing, lives.
Max speed has been temporary lowered here from 120km/h to 110, and most of the people are raging against it, it's sad to tell, but most of the people don't really care about Self-sufficiency, environment or other peoples lives...
Anyway thank you for your great instructable.
p.s. I have a pickup too but I also ride a 250 bike or bicycle to work :)
In the USA we no longer even have a speed limit! We used to, at 55mph (89km/h), but it was repealed for no apparent reason in 1995.
Unfortunately, it didn't have the positive effects on fuel and lives saved was smaller than it could have been, because the law wasn't enforced.
Better than simply lowering the limit, if government really wanted to help save lives, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and ensure citizens respect the law (having a law and not enforcing it just tells the people they can do whatever they want) all they would need to do is have automatic radar/camera systems which send speeders tickets in the mail, in much the same way as bridge toll violators.
I really can't think of any drawback, other than whatever politician proposed it would be very unpopular.
Turning with one finger? Uh... how is driving with one finger safe?
Need to swerve suddenly? Then obviously you are moving, and therefor you can turn the wheel easily. If you are moving slowly enough that its hard to turn the wheel, then you can just stop.
As you essentially point out, having these sort of luxuries encourages people to do unsafe things - like speeding on residential streets where children might run out after a ball, or steering with just one finger instead of with both hands firmly on the wheel.
As I have said many times in these comments, safety begins and ends with just two things: drive slower, and pay attention. If you ever exceed the speed limit (and I'm willing to bet that 99% you do) then you have no credibility in claiming to care about staying safe.
For example, the grill opening is designed so the engine won't over heat when pulling the maximum load up the steepest hill on the hottest day.
In that circumstance, before I head out, I take the grill block off. (And I removed the stock fan, but I replaced it with an electric fan on a thermostat)
95% of the time all 3 of those don't apply, and the engine does not overheat.
The auto industry knows that consumers prefer to have lower fuel mileage than to have to take the effort to put on and remove a grill block, but for me saving $1500 a year is worth that tiny amount of effort.
The only time it is even possible to tell there is no power steering is when parallel parking or doing a 3 point turn, when the vehicle is at a stand still. If you're only experience w/o power steering is trying to turn the wheel in a vehicle with it, but the engine off, I could see why you might think it is harder, but a purpose built manual steering gear compensates for the lack of power assist by having a larger gear ratio. The reason power steering was invented was not for safety, it was for convenience and luxury, which is what most consumers are looking for.
Its just as if I had air conditioning, I would have removed that.
If you live on either coast or in the north half of the country, you don't need air conditioning. It takes away gas mileage (even when off) and adds cost, but every single new car comes with it. Removing it would be taking out stock parts (I actually did not remove any part of the "engine") but it would not affect safety or engine longevity in any way. Most changes in car technology since mileage stoped improving back in the 70s belong in the same category as A/C - luxury.
I also live in the northern half of the US. For over 6 weeks the daytime temps were in the mid to upper 90's with a heat index of over 100.
If I were healthy, I still would need air conditioning to ensure I would stay healthy due to the things I do.
I drove vehicles without a/c, auto, and without PS. It sucked. And better MPG? Not hardly. It took more engine rpm's for me to park those vehicles and engine running time too.
I even had a Geo Metro with a stick. They claimed 45 tp 50 MPG. But due to the hills where I live, I could barely get 30mpg.
So, when I switched to an automatic my MPG stayed the same.
The power steering and A/C increased my productivity and I could do more instead of fighting the heat, thus offsetting the cost significantly.
Now, I have a small ranger with auto, A/C, PS. PB, cruise, and a 4 cylinder.
It gates the same MPG as one without all that stuff. About 18MPG on average.
If I lived in Kansas where it is nearly all flat, I could probably get by without the auto and maybe the PS, but not the A/C.
According to the experts you get better fuel economy on the highway running the a/c that if you didn't and had the windows down (air drag).
I tried a long trip one day. One without the a/c and windows down and one with.
With the A/C and windows up, I managed to get 28mpg. With the windows down and a/c off I got 20mpg.
Stop and go traffic or slow moving traffic on the interstate kills your gas mileage.
Steady speeds on the highway, but not more than 55MPH would yield the best MPG even with the A/C running.
One way to gain significant fuel economy is to get rid of on demand traffic light sensors & go back to the timing method.
Another way is to eliminate all multi-way stop signs at intersections - someone should always have the right of way. Why hold up dozens of cars just to let one person get out because of convenience?
Artificially low speed limits kill gas mileage too. Best mpg for most vehicles is around 48mpg.
Making a road that can easily handle 55mph and setting the speed limit to 35 mph does not help with fuel economy. It only serves to act as a revenue generator for greedy cash strapped political subdivisions.
About vehicles in the 70's.
I had a 1966 Ford Galaxy 500 with a 289 in it. I drove 55MPH on the highway for 400 miles one way at a constant speed. I got a whopping 20mpg out of that car, and the car weighed a LOT. It had none of the pollution control garbage on it like vehicles do today.
The government and oil companies are who makes the fuel economy so low. The addition of ethanol is supposed to reduce pollution. In fact, it makes more pollution due to trading unburned hydrocarbons for carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas.
Give me 100% straight, quality gasoline and I can get 20% better fuel economy thus reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
Driving in the cool evenings during the summertime can also give better fuel economy due to denser air and higher humidity.
I could write all day about this topic, but there is nothing I can do to change anything. I just watch how hard I step on the accelerator and try to time the red lights.
You just summed up the reason for America's dependence on imported energy. And our trade deficit. And our low savings rate. And the obesity epidemic.
Its not enough to have the luxury to travel point to point at high speed (as opposed to, say, taking public transit or a bike), we expect it should be easy and comfortable too. We think it is important that everything be easy, and that we should be comfortable all the time.
I'm sure there are a few people who have severe arthritis or some other condition that makes turning a wheel impossible, but for the vast majority of us, taking the effort to turn a wheel is the opposite of unhealthy. The only reason we need to go to gyms and "get exercise" is because we find ways to avoid doing any real work, using labor saving devices.
So, instead of just walking up the stairs, we use an escalator - and then go the gym on the weekend to walk on a treadmill. Or, we just get weaker and weaker, fatter and fatter, and then use that weakness as an excuse for not doing things which take effort. In fact, we don't even want to take the effort to walk 4 feet to the TV to change the channel, so we have remote controls.
There seems to be a lot of confusion between the meaning of the words "prefer" and "need". How many people have died, or gotten sick, or been hospitalized, due to the effort of stepping on a clutch pedal? How many have died from it being a hot day? Occasionally the very old, granted, and athletes who are dehydrated - but how many normal people, doing everyday activities, have died from it being a hot day? If humans were physically incapable of regulating their body temperature past the upper 90s, the entire specie would have died out long ago. Upper 90s? You could at least have claimed it was 110 degrees (of real temperature, not "index").
Yes, you are 100% right that traffic control devices such as lights, signs, and speed limits can have an enormous impact on mileage.
But, like you yourself said, there is little you or I can do to change those things.
What we all can do as individuals is change our own habits and behaviors.
You say those extras don't hurt your mileage - yet you get 50% worse mileage than me, and I have a much bigger truck.
As for plating up the front. As long as the radiator can get it's flow of cooling air then you don't need a grille at the front. Take a look at the old Austin/Morris Mini. I've owned two of these and they have the radiator at the right hand side of the engine (when facing the engine from the front). The fan draws air in from beneath, from the front grille if it can and from the wheel arch area. Most people boarded up the front grille anyway because rain used to get straight on the foward facing distributor and cause the old Mini to stop due to no spark at the plug.
Have you considered putting a sloping cover over the back of your truck? The slop going down from the roof to the rear. I just wonder if it would help with air flow efficiency? Just a thought..
Take care.
Kevan (over in the UK if you hadn't guessed)
Thanks for the support and the examples.
As far as a sloping cover, I did do exactly that! Look at the last the pictures under the "improving aerodynamics" page.
I'll try to put up some more pictures of the new cover when I have some time.
Along similar lines, have you ever seen the aerofoils that some truck drivers use? I've seen them over here in the UK and I believe they use them over in Europe. I don't recall seeing pictures of any in the US though? Again, just throwing some thoughts in the wind (bit of brainstorming).
Good work mate, keep it up.
Take care.
Kevan (still in the UK)
I could run a 100 mile flat run test with the cover off, and then another one the same day on the same route with it on, but I really don't want to.
What I can say is that after tilting the cover, with no other changes, my overall average increased from around 26-28mpg up to 29-30.
However, I am constantly improving my driving technique as well, so I don't know how much is due to the aerodynamic cap.
When you say airfoil, do you mean the diverter on the top of the cab that smooths airflow over the top of the trailer? If so, we have that here too. Otherwise I have no idea what that is.
Anyway, yes, I think we are both talking about the same thing :) I have seen a smaller version used to smooth air flow over a standard roof rack/roof bars on cars. I will be making one for my Land Rover when I put the roof rack back on it. I need to get the brakes working and the clutch all piped up again first though :)
Take care mate.
Kevan
Take care.
Kevan
I recognize many of the suggestions from ecomodder.com, and I applaud your dedication and skill.
I just wanted to make a few comments on power steering and aerodynamics. I used to drive a "Deuce and a half" - 2.5 ton truck when I was in the infantry (Mechanized). It also didn't have power steering, just "armstrong". I did almost break my thumbs driving off-road with a load, and running up on rocks would apply force back to the steering wheel, but I learned, and never once did I ever have any incidence on pavement. I also had a Fiero sports car without power steering. It was so small and light, it didn't need it.
And for the "naysayers" regarding the importance of your aero mods, they need to google Craig Vetter, a motorcycle industry legend, and read up on his "real world" efficiency contests, where a motorcycle rider, on mixed city streets and tracks, got well over 200 mpg in traffic. In the 80's.
I've been noticing on a lot of discussion boards, not just here, that some people are so worried about "safety" that they're too afraid to even light a propane grill. Please don't misunderstand, I do advocate safety. I also advocate growing a pair, and taking life by the throat and letting it know you're in charge.
Thanks. For the 'ible, and your efforts to spread a little education to the people around you.
As an old gear head from the 50's I find it hard to understand how you can safely get 30 mpg on an old Ford 3/4 ton. The late model cars and trucks are getting more mpg than they ever did and have more power. I just hope that you don't drive this truck where you are endangering other peoples safety. Sounds very risky to me, but good luck on your project.
I describe in great detail exactly how I get the mileage I get.
I do not endanger anyone's safety.
I drive much safer than the vast majority of Americans.
You are incorrect that late model vehicles get much better mileage than older ones. They get very slightly better on average, though there have been plenty of older vehicles that got better than our best today.
The overall averages have only gone up around 6mpg (for trucks)
See for yourself:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html
However, I find that (carefully applied) antifog liquid really does work as advertised, esp when paired with a little warm air through the defog vents.
I keep a small squeegee on the dash for when the antifog is wearing off and I haven't had time to replace it yet.
I'll grant that it may be worse in other climates than mine.
At the very least though, barring fogged up windows, one can choose to not run the A/C even if it is still there
though I have had ZERO luck with defogging fluids. Not a one I have tried yet works in fact many seem to CAUSE fog.
- Clean the window for best results. It must be dry in any case.
- get a rag, get it barely damp (dry except for ONE SPRAY from an atomizer, or dry except a small amount of condensation wiped from the window )
- Rub the rag on the bar of soap to pick up a bit of the stuff
- Apply to your window, maybe a 1-2 square foot area
- Buff with rag, (or a clean spot on the rag if there's too much soap applied) until clear.
- If you EVER see suds, your doing it wrong, it's way too wet. If you can't get the window clear because of haze from the soap, try just a bit more water on that rag.
- reapply as needed, maybe every 2 months. I keep clean dry old towels in the car to apply the stuff and newspaper and spray window cleaner to pre-clean the glass
- Keep the bar of soap in a reused plastic food container with a tight fitting lid. I use hot-and-sour soup container from carryout.
- works for mirrors in bathrooms too
But the almost free, DIY version that kill-a-watt described sounds great.
I'll try it next time.
Thanks!!
Also they do make low rolling resistance tires for trucks, but they are advertised as high mileage tires. I have 80,000 mile tires on my truck, which accomplishes this with a low friction rubber and tread pattern, just like low rolling resistance tires. They are awful in snow, but I can't complain otherwise.
I am really surprised you haven't noticed any difference at all. Even without doing anything at all, most people will see a 1 or 2 mpg difference between one tank and the next, just from random variations in weather and hills and the mix of city to highway driving.
An 5spd manual should help. I want to do that, but don't have the time or money for it. I also can't get the low rolling resistance tires, because my truck uses the big 8 lug commercial size wheels, and I regularly max out the load, so I need tires that can handle that.
Other than that, slow down on the highway - especially since you don't have an overdrive, and because are trucks have terrible aerodynamics. For those reasons it will make a much bigger difference for you than for most.
I used to average 15mpg, and went up to 20mpg just by driving slower, before I had made any physical mods at all.
When E10 came to my locale well the sh$t hit the fan 13mpg is normal now. Whenever I am out of state and can get E0 it goes back to 19mpg almost immediately (depending on how empty it was when I filled it) by tank 2 on E0 its 19mpg again.
My Jeep went from 22-23 mpg to 17-18 mpg
My minivan went from 28mpg to 20-21mpg
My Metro gets 57-58mpg on E0 On Wawa Gas (its about E8 usually) I get 47-48mpg on "joes gas" ie no name gas 10-13% Ethanol I get 36-42 mpg in the same car
part of the reason SOME of us see very little deviation is we have a very long and extremely consistent commute. Previous to E10 I did not even see a more than "noise level" drop in FE in the winter time.
my commute is 54 miles one way 6 days a week. (thats how I got 494,000 miles on my 88 Cherokee :-)
Ethanol sucks big time. You want to see a big boost in FE with your gasser? see if you have an E0 stations around you. Trust me. DO the math and its worth paying more for E0
I get 48mpg on E10 which means I can go 480 miles on 10 gallons.
If I take that same 10 gallons of E10 and REMOVE the gallon of ethanol from it (I use water mix forced phase separation to do this ie just dump some water in a tub of gas mix it up let it settle and remove the water (which now has the ethanol in it instead of in the gas)
you end up with 9 gallons of E0
I put that 9 gallons in the car and I get 55mpg or 495 miles from 9 gallons.
SO I can actuall go FURTHER ie pay less money per mile if I remove the gallon of ethanol from E10 and THROW IT AWAY and just drive on the 9 gallons of left over nearly pure gas.
Go figure. Newer cars are not hurt so badly (3-5% losses) but the older pre 2004 especially pre 2000 cars are hit BADLY. and if your a TBI and older its even worse!
I can get E10 in Nj for $2.72 I can get E0 up in the mountains (when I am their I bring home 10 gas cans full) for $2.89
So E10 costs me 5.6 cents per mile while E0 costs me 5.0 cents per mile
so in a year (40,000 miles for me) I save $240 by buying $2.89 E0 over $2.72 E10.
And this is in my METRO !!! I did the math for my Van. Its scary.
20.9 cents per mile on E10 and 15.2 cents per mile on E0
Cost Burden of E10 in my Van is 5.7 cents per mile extra in other words compulsory E10 COSTS ME $2,280 a year in EXTRA fuel expense!!!
The metro cost me $1000 after repairs to put it on the road. So now you know why I bought a metro.
heck the BURDEN increase in fuel costs for the van is greater than the COMPLETE fuel burden in the metro on E10
the LOWER you fuel economy the more Ethanol hurts your bank account.
On Biodiesel I get nearly identical mileage that I did with petrol diesel (and it comes from recycled vegetable oil)
"54 miles one way 6 days a week" that will surely get you more consistent mileage than I can get, with a different job in a different place every day, but you should still see a big difference between spending an entire tank driving at 50mph versus spending an entire tank at 75mph.
I pay much more for biodiesel than I would for petrol fuel, with no gain in mileage.
I occasionally talk to people for whom that doesn't make any sense, but I meet many more people who get it.
Try driving on an entire tank, full to fill-up, at 70-75mph (assuming its legal), and then on the next tank never go above 45mph, and then let me know if your mileage still never changes.
Think about it. Your burning "MORE GASOLINE" so automatically your creating MORE emissions and a larger footprint.
In my van Ethanol means I need 838 MORE gallons of E10 per year over when it was E0 that means
I need to burn 83.8 MORE gallons of ethanol and 754 MORE gallons of Gasoline Every single year because of the usage of ethanol.
If the MPG loss from ethanol was less than 10% it MIGHT be possible to reduce emissions and environmental foot print via ethanol usage.
if you have a flex fuel vehicle OK it might reduce emissions.
but on your admittedly older vehicle you are creating DRAMATICALLY more emissions and a dramatically larger environmental foot print by using ethanol based fuels (UNLESS you convert to run E85)
Your truck uses about 142 gallons of fuel at 14mpg. I am betting you would get 18-19mpg on pure gasoline (its physically impossible for your fuel economy to NOT change between E10 and E0)
So on pure gas you would only need 105 gallons of gas a year.
SO because of ethanol your burning 37 MORE gallons of gas every year and 37 gallons worth MORE emissions and foot print per year.
thats just not logical. and its more expensive. Unlike you I drive 40,000 miles a year so my "cost per mile" is very important to me.
I learned a "green" trick. If its not cheaper its NOT green. Period.
if it costs more money its "fake" green.
I don't care how much cleaner the ethanol burns the 18% to 27% more "actual gasoline" I burn in the process or burning that 10% ethanol is NOT going to burn cleaner.
MORE emissions. your studies and tests are on engines that PROPERLY and EFFICIENTLY burn Ethanol.
Try doing those same studies on cars NOT designed to burn ethanol and get back to me.
I BARELY passed my nox test. 10% ethanol I can NOT pass NOX 8% ethanol I passed (wawa gas at the time was about 8% ethanol)
so now I know from now on when I get inspected make sure I am running E0
you CAN NOT burn 20-20% more fuel and tell me its cleaner unless you can magically make these engines orders of magnitude more efficient somehow without changing anything mechanically.
in a 2010 car off the show room floor. SURE you might lower SOME emissions by using ethanol (did you account for the emissions to CREATE that ethanol??)
take any pre 2004 car and run the same tests and let me know what you get.
what percentage of the cars on the road today are pre 2004?
My point is that in my truck, which doesn't have a catalytic converter to reduce CO or EGR to reduce NOx, E10% helps a lot.
Also, you have no idea what studies I was referencing so you do not know what engines they were using. The one in particular was using a commercially available spark ignition engine designed for gasoline, not optimized for E10 and they ran on a wide range of air/fuel ratios and ignition timing. I am not around the computer that I saved those papers on, but by all means next week I will post them so you can see for yourself.
If you can not pass smog with E10, then there is something wrong with your car. You probably have a minor vacuum leak, a stuck EGR valve, a failing O2 sensor or a catalytic converter that is about to fail. Either way, all modern cars are EPA certified and are guaranteed to work on E10, check your owner's manual. New, your car probably had no problem passing smog on E10, otherwise it would not have passed EPA certification, which means that if it doesn't pass smog now, then something needs to be fixed on the car.
As for burning 20% more fuel, I don't. I have not seen anything but measurement noise with or without ethanol in the gas and I can tell by the smell of the exhaust that it is cleaner and if a human nose can sense it, I would venture to say that it is probably at least an order of magnitude.
Why do people alway argue about the emissions from making ethanol? No one ever mentions the emissions for making gasoline. Drilling, shipping around the world, and refining oil is not a clean process by any means.
Why is 2004 so special, is your car a 2003?
I have messed around with newer cars (remember, mine is a 71 so most cars are new from my perspective). I helped a friend with a 91 CRX pass smog by adding 10% ethanol to pump gas, which already had 8ish% to begin and I got a 92 jetta to pass smog by adding 20% ethanol. I'm not saying that tricking smog is the best thing to do, but every engine is designed differently and every engine wears differently so what happens in one or most, might not be true for one. There are always outliers.
But I only buy E10 because I know that at least 10% of my fuel was made in the US and in my 1971 F100, I get better emissions on E10
for MOST of us here is the FLAW in this logic.
lets do the math. lets use my best mpg but normal car my minivan 28mpg on E0 - Average person (I drive 40k a year) drives 11k a year.
so in 1 year you would consume roughly 393 gallons of gasoline.
SO what about E10. 354 gallons of gasoline and 39 gallons ethanol right?
WRONG.
with E10 your now getting 21mpg if your REALLY careful and if you use LOW ethanol gas (on joe's gas I get 18-19mpg) but lets be generous here so we will use the better 21mpg.
Now your using 523 gallons of E10 a year or 470.7 gallons of Gasoline and 52.3 gallons of Ethanol.
so sure your now spending money to buy 52.3 gallons of USA made Ethanol but your now buying 77.7 MORE GALLONS of foreign oil gasoline than you were BEFORE ethanol !!!
Do you not see how screwed up this is ?
I would really love to see actual unbiased test data for your fuel economy on the track with E0 and E10.
I would be a years salary you are putting out signigicantly MORE emissions per year. you might be cleaner "per cycle" but your not going to need MORE CYCLES to cover the same miles. IE more pollution not less.
if I lower pollution 10% but increase the cycle counts by 20% well you get the idea.
the only way you could be burning cleaner is if your fuel economy dropped LESS than 10% on E10 from E0.
I contend that short of modifying your vehicle this is impossible for a 1971 vehicle.
Which means, for example, that a big 6L engine with a turbo and dual exhaust pipes and low mileage can put out a lot more total CO and NOx and still pass smog, as long as the O2 and H2O and CO2 levels all increase proportionately with the pollutants. The test is for engine efficiency, not level of pollution per mile.
So, in theory at least, adding something in which burned clean could lower emissions on the test without lower them per mile (if it didn't add any power)
Of course, ethanol does add some power, so the question is how much.
Then again, if it reduces HP, and slows drivers down a little, I consider that a good thing all by itself, so there is another point in its favor.
Most automatics should not be coasted engine off. I covered that in the instructable.
Having manual steering does not make it less safe, it makes it less comfortable and convenient.
The brakes are still power brakes, they are just operated by electricity instead of an engine belt. There is nothing less safe about that.
Hypermiling is more safe in every way: the single largest contributing factor in accidents is speed.
http://neapolitanblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/slow-down-my-philosophy-for-life-also.html
I and other hypermilers drive much slower than average.
Hypermilers are also far more aware of traffic and everything going on around them than the average driver.
What is unsafe is operating a multi-ton vehicle at 70MPH assuming that the safety systems built in will protect you.