Is driving long distance bad for the car?

Anymore, I think it's notable if a car has major problems before 100k miles.
 
Thanks Argatoga and Ford Prefect for the explanation

So I'll just park the car but keep the engine running when I'm at a rest stop, correct?

Or drive slowly on the interstate (though this is too difficult to do, I'll be tempted to catch up with whoever's speeding ;) )


And the reason I'm so concerned about the health of my car is because I've never owned one and I always want to know whats the best way to do something.
 
Just use the car as you would. Yes city driving and start/stop is tougher on a car than highway, but it's not something to actively worry about. It doesn't do "damage" per se to stop the car and turn off the engine... and leaving it running at a rest stop is a pretty good way to lose the car very quickly!
 
So I'll just park the car but keep the engine running when I'm at a rest stop, correct?

No. Apart from the car theft risk, virtually any modern (post-70s) car should have an electrical fan, that takes care of any overheated car.
As long as you're not towing something (a caravan? Get out!) or it's extremely hot or you were going extremely fast you won't need it anyway. The only time I notably hear my car actively cool itself after driving is during nice summer days when I go reasonably quick (German resonableness that is...) and stop without any chance for it to cool off at slower speeds.
 
(...) I go reasonably quick (German resonableness that is...) and stop without any chance for it to cool off at slower speeds.

Meaning flat-out, doesn't it? :D Cause that's what I do whenever I get to drive on an Autobahn. Mind you my car only does 160 km/h (ish) and doesn't really use that much more fuel when driven flat-out so it doesn't really matter, and poodling around at a 100 is a bit boring anyway.
 
Last edited:
Just use the car as you would.

Agreed. A 700 mile drive isn't particularly taxing for a modern car. I do 3-400 mile days pretty regularly and have gone up to 1000 miles in a day. The only thing I'll do different on the long drives is to check the fluids before I leave.
 
Last edited:
What's so special about towns and villages? :stig:

yeah really. I only go less than 80 miles an hour when I'm in my own street, as not to run over my cats - other than that, what's so special about towns and villages?!
 
Agreed. A 700 mile drive isn't particularly taxing for a modern car. I do 3-400 mile days pretty regularly and have gone up to 1000 miles in a day. The only thing I'll do different on the long drives is to check the fluids before I leave.

700 highway miles wasn't exactly taxing on earlier cars either, not if they were in good shape.
 
The only thing I will add to this is for turbo-charged engines. A turbo is spinning pretty fast cruising down the expressway, and letting the car sit and run a minute will allow the turbo to slow down and maintain lubrication without any ill effects. Simply shutting down the engine can starve the turbo bearings for oil.
 
Assuming your car is in good condition (oil, coolant, tire alignment and pressure, etc.) it's fine. In fact, many people will say things like "70K highway miles" in used car ads.

The trip is worse for you than the car; sitting in one place building deep-vein thrombosis and eating crap food from truckstops and diners.
 
So I'll just park the car but keep the engine running when I'm at a rest stop, correct?

Nonono... Again, you are thinking too much. What we have been stating here is all true, but unless your car is totally overheated, or the ambient temperature is so extremely low that the engine temperature would drop all the way in the time it takes you to empty your bladder or have a bite to eat, it is perfectly ok to turn it off.

When I?m driving on the autobahn and the road is relatively clear, my car will be between 5 and 6k rpms for hours, but I still turn it off when I stop for fuel or nicotine. And when I?m having a cigarette break I?m usually still standing right next to the car.

To sum it up: Don?t worry!!! Just do what everyone else does. And if you want to be really safe you can check the oil level at your destination before you do the return trip. That?s about it...
 
Last edited:
Let me add that the otto cycle internal combustion engine is most happy and efficient when it is running at a constant revolution, be it 1000, 3000 or 5000 rpms.

What is inefficient is driving at 85 mph when you could be getting far better gas mileage driving lets say 78 mph (just throwing a number out). I figured out that my engine in particular is most efficient at 2800 rpms, or roughly 76 mph.
Doing that, I drove 200 miles, 170 which was on the Interstate (43 North to South, then I-90 to I-39 to I-88) and I got 32 mpg in a porky 3300 pound Impreza, with an additional 200 pounds than normal. Because I was going with the flow also, that meant less braking, and sorry to be blunt but you should NEVER need to brake on an Interstate.

Every car has that "Interstate sweet spot", where high speed and high mileage seem to merge.
 
I just did a 400 or so mile round trip doing around 85 pretty much the whole way in my Fairlane.
It did it just fine, and its 42 years old lol :p
Oh, and because its 40 some-odd years old, no overdrive, so it was about 5 hours of 3500 rpm :mrgreen:
(4000 "redline", quoted because it does not have a redline, but thats where the auto trans shifts)

By the way, I don't recommend it in a car this old. my mileage was bad, and now I have a headache from the wind noise :lol:
 
Let me add that the otto cycle internal combustion engine is most happy and efficient when it is running at a constant revolution, be it 1000, 3000 or 5000 rpms.

What is inefficient is driving at 85 mph when you could be getting far better gas mileage driving lets say 78 mph (just throwing a number out). I figured out that my engine in particular is most efficient at 2800 rpms, or roughly 76 mph.

There are three main things affecting economy at constant speed:
- aerodynamic drag: The faster you go, the (quadratically) more drag
- engine friction: The more rpm, the (linearly) more friction
- engine efficiency: How well it transforms gas into motion energy. A quick googling turned up the data for VW's 1.9 TDI (yes, no otto cycle here):

tdi-bsfc.png


That tells us its best efficiency (fuel per work) at 95% load and 1700rpm. It's producing 50hp then, which means in a keep-your-speed-scenario you will use a lot less load, follow the 210-line - even lower rpm are most efficient then.

All the engine bits don't really matter though - for an average car the aerodynamic drag at 100kph is about three times as high as any engine-related friction, at 140kph it's about five times as much.

Bottom line, before this turns into (yet another?) fuel economy thread: Aerodynamics kill everything at highway speeds or faster. A nice graph from sk-8.de, friction from tires/axles/etc (red), added drag (blue), added engine friction for each gear (gray lines):

ReibungenKFZ.gif
 
I do 3-400 mile days pretty regularly and have gone up to 1000 miles in a day.

and...

I just did a 400 or so mile round trip doing around 85 pretty much the whole way in my Fairlane.

Oh man! Why do you guys need to be driving so much? Where are you going?! haha :lol:
 
hehe, well today was just a pleasure run really, I had no reason to go, but no reason not to either :cool:


Tomorrow's a different story, I am starting school in Cedar City, so I have a 200 mile drive first thing in the morning tomorrow to move into my dorm hehe

Doesn't help living in Utah. Pretty much everything is a long ways away from everything else lol
 
I simply hate being in a car that revvs too high at highway speeds. A buddy of mine has a 2002 Mazda Protege (manual) and it was doing around 3500 rpm at 120 km/h (70 MPH). Even though it was a short trip, I hated it because of constant engine boom inside the cabin.

My mom's matrix does a little better (3000 rpm at 120 km/h) with it's auto tranny. My next car will probably be a 2001/2002 Corolla because I found out that that thing only does 2400 rpm at 120 km/h (auto tranny). Another thing, if an engine revvs high for a long amount of time (over 3000 rpm), it gives me the feeling that it's just working too hard, I don't like that.

Basically, the lower RPM at a certain speed, the better for both efficiency and lifespan of the engine. I high-revving engine also produces more friction in the air, which also isn't good for efficiency.

I can also point out that the 2010 Civic you want to get also revs quite low because it's auto is a 5-speed unit.
 
Last edited:
And I occasionally do brake on the interstate (from 85MPH to 60MPH and back to 85)
Would this be the same as stop/go or not because I don't fully stop?

That's no problem, since you don't really use the brakes heavily changing from 85 to 60 mph.

Mhhhh. Again, the squares are out to get your precious petrol.

If you brake from 30 to 0, you'll waste 30?-0?=900 bits of kinetic energy.
If you brake from 85 to 60, you'll waste 85?-60?=3625 bits of kinetic energy, pretty much four times that, or half your total energy.
If you brake twice, once from 85 to 60 and once from 60 to 0, both waste about the same amount of energy.

Ever noticed how you have to step on the brake quite hard whenever a lorry/caravan/etc pulls out just to go 20 slower, while in the city you're always careful not to cause the guy behind you to smash into your boot...?
 
Top