View Single Post
  #5   Report Post  
Old August 29th 05, 02:43 PM posted to uk.transport.london
Neil Williams Neil Williams is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,796
Default Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:07:59 -0400, "David Spiro"
wrote:

I agree that diesel is more fuel efficient, but, IIRC, it also tends to be
more of a pollutant that regular gasoline. Has there been any improvement in
Europe in combating this problem? As for automatic transmissions, they are
better at being fuel efficient on the highway, if there is a c"cruise
control" feature built in.


Cruise control is provided on most executive level manual-transmission
cars in the UK. If you think about it, it's not necessary to change
gear to maintain a constant speed on the motorway, certainly not in
the types of car that tend to have it, which tend to be those with
larger engines. It is fitted to more and more cars these days because
it's something that can be provided using a few lines of code in the
ECU and no additional physical hardware bar an on/off switch. It has
nothing at all to do with the transmission.

Automatics are probably less fuel efficent in city driving though,
and of that, I have no doubt.


Automatic transmissions in general are less fuel-efficient because
there are losses from the torque converter. If a converter lock-up
feature is provided, as it is with many such transmissions, the losses
can be reduced at motorway speeds, but when not engaged the losses
remain. The loss is fairly obvious in how gutless small-engined
automatic cars seem to be compared with the equivalent manual.

There are, of course, other types of automatic transmission that use
hydraulics to operate a conventional clutch and gearbox. These are
rather more efficient, but most people find that the driving
experience is uncomfortable, especially because you can lose power for
a couple of seconds at the "wrong" time while the gearbox shifts,
which can be downright dangerous at worst. CVTs are very efficient
indeed, but also don't last long enough so are uneconomic.

True, and growing up in NYC as I did, the situation is similar indeed. The
unfortunate thing about living here in Rochester is that the bus routes do
not extend far enough off of the main roads in order to make them more
accessible. If they did that, I htink more people would be inclined to use
them.


The trouble with that is that running through estates makes bus routes
slower.

I think in the end it all depends, as you have pointed out, what is your
destination, and what would make the most sense.


Indeed. I use all modes of transport as appropriate to the specific
journey, be that walking, bicycle, bus, train, car, ferry or plane.
The number of people who give me funny looks when they find that I use
the first three (and to a lesser extent #4) when I own a car is
significant and alarming at the same time.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.