Air conditioning or open the drive?

[jean63]

For me the answer is simple:

1 -

I regret that there is not a system like on my "deuch": an air shutter with a simple grid !! you can feel the wind in your face, you almost feel like you are on a motorbike! and no fan noise or turbulence !! .We regress on systems that were super simple, efficient, ecological and pleasant

it still existed on 104 Peugeot, I have one that I use in 2nd car.

2 - Paint your car white (it's a picture!). There is a huge difference between a dark vehicle and a white one. I can tell the difference since I have (or I had both); with a white vehicle no more air conditioning. Besides, why are the solar collector pipes painted black?

... So solution = white + direct air intake / outside.

[Lolox]

For me the answer is simple:

1 -

I regret that there is not a system like on my "deuch": an air shutter with a simple grid !! you can feel the wind in your face, you almost feel like you are on a motorbike! and no fan noise or turbulence !! .We regress on systems that were super simple, efficient, ecological and pleasant

it still existed on 104 Peugeot, I have one that I use in 2nd car.

Indeed, the system was not aml, but anyway even if there had been a fan, with the engine noise and the low soundproofing, you would never have heard !!!

Finally, in all likelihood, the most logical thing would be to open the windows in town, despite the pollution in traffic jams, and use the air conditioning on the highways ... At "high" speed, the open windows cause good overconsumption (of around 20% according to some manufacturers).

[Woodcutter]

Tested during the summer when it was very hot, no measurable overconsumption with the air conditioning on long journeys ...

[Other]

Hello
In terms of air conditioning, most cars have this
just talk to a car salesman to know that it is no longer an (option) but a serious sales argument!
On my 3 cars they all have air conditioning, on the 300D it lacks gas and as it is freon 12 which is only found on the black market, I do without.
For the lumberjack remark, it is true that the difference in consumption is minimal, the figures that I gave you for consumption of smoteur 3,8 with panton this was done in summer on cars automatic transmission and without regard if I use air conditioning, but when it's hot I use it as needed.
I think that on a large engine, the fact of using air conditioning or pumping on the alternator at a certain speed, which is probably too lightly charged, has little influence on consumption.
A small motor which is used in its good load with good output when it is asked a supplement its consumption increases.
When I say that I make 8,5 liters with a 3,8 liter engine automatic transmission and vehicle that weighs over 1,700 kq and that when I do the tests it is mainly in the heart of summer with the air conditioning which is automatic the temperature is pre-adjusted that leaves on demand. Nobody believes me!
By cons the same vehicle used in the fall, the air conditioning does not work, it consumes more, and in town I dare not say it is around 15 liters and more in winter.
When knowing the influence of the weight on consumption, it is true in urban use acelleration and braking or in conditions of dimensions, but in use flat highway only inside or to 5 people and luggage, it is not even measurable if there is differrence ..
I wonder if this car was manual transmission without air conditioning and light what figure would come out on consumption.
On the Tachometer I have 1800 rpm at 100kmh ..
I remember having had a WV cocelle 1500cc loaned to help me out, it easily consumed its 9 liters per 100km.
I ask myself questions about the displacement versus the consumption?
I think that your government should abolish its tax system with these fiscal CVs which in short does not want anything in the rest of the world, but it should encourage the manufacturers to make economic cars, without putting constraints of cubic capacity. an engine must have a power adapted to the vehicle, an underpowered engine in too large a vehicle consumes more than a more powerful engine, we check it many times on the American GM or Ford vehicle, since there was a range of engine available in the same vehicles .. 4 in V6 or V8 lines. The findings that we make with a smaller engine is that its consumption in town is more favorable, but on the highway it is the big engine that is more favorable.


Andre

[vttdechaine]

I think it is difficult to give a general framework because the quality of cars both at the air and air conditioning is very heterogeneous.

In town, considering low speeds, opening windows is preferable.
On the road, the size of the car can be one of the guides to follow:
- a small car will have less repercussions than a large one if you open the windows. We can therefore take advantage of windows opened at higher speeds.
- a small car often has a smaller engine. Air conditioning will therefore make it lose a relatively large part of the total power. For normal driving, it is therefore likely that we will "hit" the engine harder, hence fuel consumption still increasing. A large car will have a "reserve" of power.

For the Picasso, I would say that we must take the test (don't crowd me ...)

Also remember that the consumption test on the AX diesel showed lower consumption in the summer ... while we were driving (like everyone else) with the windows open (compensate with fewer passengers in the summer as part of this is).

[Woodcutter]

[...] I think that your government should abolish its taxation system with these fiscal CVs which in short wants nothing in the rest of the world, but it should encourage the manufacturers to make economic cars, without putting constraints of cubic capacity . [...]

This is a bit like happening with taxation on CO2 emissions (for company vehicles).

[elephant]

there, I agree: the fuel should be taxed so as to penalize those who consume a lot, and not the displacement: after all, if a grandpa who travels 15000 km per year wants a comfortable car, that 'he pays less tax than a youngster who rides like a pig.

On the airco, you also have to understand that there are people who are paid to drive a lot, including when it is hot. And sorry, 200 or 300 km in the day by 30 ° in the shade, it's hard!
I had a Peugeot 806: the salesman practically told me: "for heaven's sake, take the air!"
and I did not regret it because from 90, windows open, the vehicle was absolutely unbearable. On the other hand I drove with the air co adjusted to 23 ° (pcq, from April, it was untenable because of the large windows)

[vttdechaine]

there, I agree: fuel should be taxed so as to penalize those who consume a lot

NO !
By taxing those who consume a lot we tax those who drive daily, far from the centers (often the least wealthy, those who have not found accommodation easily), with weaker financial means and whose solvency does not always allow to invest in a latest generation car that consumes less.
Clearly, those who consume more are sometimes (and often) those who cannot afford to do otherwise.
Taxing them even more will reduce their solvency and force them to defraud (driving with fuel oil for example) and to no longer even be able to invest in a low-consumption car.

[Woodcutter]

[...]NO !
By taxing those who consume a lot we tax those who drive daily, far from the centers (often the least wealthy, those who have not found accommodation easily), with weaker financial means and whose solvency does not always allow to invest in a latest generation car that consumes less.
Clearly, those who consume more are sometimes (and often) those who cannot afford to do otherwise. [...]

Not agree at all ! The argument is partly false ...

First, the people who are really obliged not only using their car to go to work are not that numerous, and on the other hand, an AX 14 D or a Saxo will always consume less than a Mégane or a 307 ...