Mythbusters on auto Air-conditioning

[Just thinking]

I recently watched the episode where a comparrison was made to see which was more fuel efficient -- driving with the windows down (producing drag) vs. driving with them up and using the air-conditioner.

The testing involved driving an SUV at speeds 55 and 45 mph on a test track. What I found astonishing (although not by too much) was not that driving with the windows down was more fuel efficient, but that under even ideal conditions at these steady speeds the vehicles got no better than 12 mpg. And this point was not even mentioned in the episode as being important. And then we (as a nation) complain that oil is too expensive???

[mummymonkey]

I can remember driving up Mt Olympus in Cyprus in an old Mazda with a couple of mates. We had a fair load of grub and beer and we had to switch off the air conditioning several times just to get up the hill.

[LTC8K6]

I thought the tests were pretty unrealistic.

I still think you will do better with the A/C on.

I thought they went too slow, and they just left the A/C wide open rather than setting it at a comfortable level.

[kevin]

I thought the tests were pretty unrealistic.

I still think you will do better with the A/C on.

I thought they went too slow, and they just left the A/C wide open rather than setting it at a comfortable level.

yeah those were my thoughts on that episode too. Especially the speed. Supossedly the windows open causes more drag and the faster you go the more drag you would see. I think speeds of 60-70 mph are much more typical for highway driving at least in the midwest.

Also I thought the worry about the tires blowing out was weird. I've done 12 hour drives in cars at 70-80 mph without problems, with only stops for the restroom and lunch.

[kevin]

they did another gas mpg test with some trucks testing tailgate up or tailgate down for best mpg that I thought was much better done. And tailgate up is better.

[Hindmost]

This topic was later revisited. The benefits are related to speed...at low speeds when the drag is less, it is better to have the windows open and the a/c off...at higher speeds with greater drag, using the a/c is more fuel efficient.

glenn:boxedin:

[casebro]

Their samples are waaay tooo small. Two guys, two trucks. They didn't even switch trucks and redo the tests. Bad science.

[pgwenthold]

yeah those were my thoughts on that episode too. Especially the speed. Supossedly the windows open causes more drag and the faster you go the more drag you would see. I think speeds of 60-70 mph are much more typical for highway driving at least in the midwest.

Also I thought the worry about the tires blowing out was weird. I've done 12 hour drives in cars at 70-80 mph without problems, with only stops for the restroom and lunch.

This sort of illustrates the folly of the whole question. If you are worried about your gas milage, the question isn't whether to run the AC or open the windows. It's what speed to drive.

I have about an hour commute to work each day (and back again), of which 45 minutes or so is on open highway. When I started doing this, I used to fit more into the 60 - 70 mph that you speculate for highway driving in the midwest. That is a reasonable characterization of the stretch I drive. I used to go about 65 and was not the fastest nor the slowest.

Lately, I have slowed down. Now I run the cruise at about 58 mph. It costs me about 4 minutes extra on the drive, but since I have started slowing it down I discover that I am getting about 2 mpg better gas milage than I did before.

The small difference between windows and AC isn't the problem when you are going fast, where the efficiency is lower. And it doesn't cost you much in time, just a couple of minutes usually, and, moreover, I don't care if I see a cop, because he isn't going to bother with me at 58 mph. In terms of benefit, given two tanks of gas each week, and gas prices of 2 - $2.50, I figure I can save about $4 - $5 a week in gas, or $200 - $250 a year. Just by slowing down.

[Art Vandelay]

The other question is which is more effective? If the outside temperature is the same as the inside, then what's the point of opening the windows? In fact, any air from the outside is going to be moving relative to you, so it's going to heat the car up.

[Simon Bridge]

This topic was later revisited. The benefits are related to speed...at low speeds when the drag is less, it is better to have the windows open and the a/c off...at higher speeds with greater drag, using the a/c is more fuel efficient.

glenn:boxedin:
Strictly speaking, this would also depend on the temperature of the air.

When you wind the windows down, you are letting hot air from outside into the car. It feels cooler than the air in the car because, as it is moving, it can cool you by convection (and evaporating sweat - so humidity plays a role too).

I suspect the air inside the air conditioned car was cooler.

The test needed to check the cooling vs the additional fuel use as well. The windows-down car would set the internal temp that the conditioner is to try to maintain - and the steady state should have arrived before measurements taken.

In short - poorly controlled.

This is generally the case for these guys. They have only so much time to make one of their eps and to air it, so there are some things they just cannot do. There will also be budget restraints (not per-test but per-season) and the tests have to look good on TV as well as be understandable to station execs/producers. (At least - these guys must believe that their idea of the TV audience will want to watch these things - and that advertisers are prepared to pay for the timeslots).

TV is just not a good medium for reporting scientific investigations.

[Simon Bridge]

Cooling: there is a neet experiment for you to do at home.

Heat up something (with a hole in it for a thermometer) by boiling in water, then suspend it in still air for a (actually quite a long) time. Keep track of the temperature at regular intervals as the thing cools down and plot this.

Do it again, only this time introduce a small desk fan.

One may suggest that the cooling is slower (it will be an exponential, so the cooling factor is taken from the slope of a log graph) for the fan-forced test because the air is moving, thus delivering kinetic energy via collisions to the object, thus adding heat ...

The temperature of the room will be a factor. The room temp will be a bit higher after the first test. This should also decrease cooling for the second test.

However - cooling rate is increased with the fan. A result not surprising. In fact, the fan-forced cooling is optimal (Newtonian) cooling - where the cooling rate depends only on the difference between room temp and the object temp.

This is because, as the object cools, it's heat goes to the local body of air. This will gradually move away (convection). Since this is gradual, the air immediately around the object is warmer than the mean room temp. However, a fan will blow this hot air away quickly, replacing it with lower temperature air.

The experiment can be repeated with ice, and a rate of heating considered.
In this case, the ice heats faster under the fan! And for exactly the same reasons.

[EatatJoes]

"What I found astonishing (although not by too much) was not that driving with the windows down was more fuel efficient, but that under even ideal conditions at these steady speeds the vehicles got no better than 12 mpg."

Well, I've read in Consumer Report magazines that the stated MPG for most vehicles is way off. The industry calculates the gas milage based on average driving conditions from, like, twenty years ago. We don't drive the same now.

Many automobiles today spend 62 percent of their annual miles in city stop-and-go traffic, where fuel economy is the lowest. The EPA formula still uses a 55/45 percent city/highway ratio to calculate combined fuel economy. - from www.consumerreports.com

When Consumer Reports did their testing they found that the actual MPG ranged from 21% better than claimed MGP to 28% worse. City MPG is usually much lower than what is claimed. For example, the hybrid Honda Civic has a claimed City MPG of 48, it's actually more like 26 MPG. Not that I would complain if my car got that kind of gas milage in the city, but if I was expecting much more, I'd be ticked off.

[kevin]

Well, I've read in Consumer Report magazines that the stated MPG for most vehicles is way off. The industry calculates the gas milage based on average driving conditions from, like, twenty years ago. We don't drive the same now.

They are, but this was a comparitive A/C to no A/C on the same vehicle model. The estimated MPG from the manufacturer wasn't involved.

For one part they did use a computer model from the manufacturer to get a running estimate that disagreed with their results (but I think it was run under quite significant different conditions).

The computer in my Prius gives a pretty accurate MPG number based on my refueling amounts, but isn't close to the sticker estimated MPG (I get 40 MPG roughly depending on how maniac I drive.) I would actually get better milage in my Prius if I moved further away from work.

[Hindmost]

Strictly speaking, this would also depend on the temperature of the air.

When you wind the windows down, you are letting hot air from outside into the car. It feels cooler than the air in the car because, as it is moving, it can cool you by convection (and evaporating sweat - so humidity plays a role too).

I suspect the air inside the air conditioned car was cooler.

The test needed to check the cooling vs the additional fuel use as well. The windows-down car would set the internal temp that the conditioner is to try to maintain - and the steady state should have arrived before measurements taken.

agreed...it would really take reams of data to test this completely. There would be variations in cars, climate, clouds, sun, humidity, driving conditions..etc. I am going to use my a/c anyhow since I consider it one of the best inventions of all time.

glenn:boxedin:

[coalesce]

In my Toyota Highlander, driving with the back windows down in the summer as opposed to using the AC is not an option. The amount of road noise and especially the air reverberating in back of me is unbearable, worse than any sedan I've ever ridden in or driven. Does any other SUV driver have this problem as well?

Michael

[davefoc]

On pgwenthold's slowing down comment:
I also have slowed my driving down of late. I am semi-retired and don't have the pressure of having to work at specific times for fairly long hours anymore so driving slower, eliminating the possibility of speeding tickets, listening to some talk radio and saving a bit on gas seems like a reasonable thing to do.

But I still drive between 65 and 70 most of the time. When I tried to slow down much below that there were all sorts of minor annoyances. There are a lot of people that think that even in the slow lane drivers aren't supposed to drive below 65 mph and they let you know that by driving up your butt and tailgating you for awhile.

And then there is the general annoyance of driving in the slow lane. Most people who drive in California are fairly adept at getting on the freeways but a fair number aren't. Some people get on the freeway by getting to the end of the on ramp and just blindly plowing onto the freeway. And quite a few people use the on ramp to accelerate to about 35 mph and then finish their acceleration while they are on the freeway. I am pretty sure that braking and accelerating for these people reduces fuel economy and increases car maintenace expenses more than any small savings recovered from using the slow lane to drive slower.

On the EPA mileage estimate inaccuracy:
I have beaten the EPA highway mileage estimates for every vehicle I have owned. Currently I own a Honda Prelude that was rated at 27 mpg and I get between 29 and 33 mpg for a 75% highway mile mix. The only things I do are to keep my tires inflated and to drive with as little braking as possible meaning that I try to be aware of slowing traffic and allow the car to slow itself down before I need to use the brakes. I also own a Honda accord that gets about 30 mpg when I drive it on the highway. My wife gets about 25 mpg for mostly around town driving. Both of those numbers are better than the EPA estimates.

My buddy owns a Toyota Prius and while he doesn't quite get the rated 56 mpg he still gets well over 50 mpg on the highway.

[Bigt]

Their samples are waaay tooo small. Two guys, two trucks. They didn't even switch trucks and redo the tests. Bad science.


It's entertainment, not science.

[shecky]

Interesting. My first car back in the 80s was a Chevrolet Sprint, a absolutely reliable car that got a real 50 MPG on the highway. And it was about the cheapest car on the market. Unfortunately, no A/C, but amazingly economical car be even today's hybrid standards.

[Just thinking]

Interesting. My first car back in the 80s was a Chevrolet Sprint, a absolutely reliable car that got a real 50 MPG on the highway. And it was about the cheapest car on the market. Unfortunately, no A/C, but amazingly economical car be [sic] even today's hybrid standards.

Yes -- I had a 1988 Honda CRX Si that got over 38 mpg on a 75% highway 25% city jaunt of over 200 miles. Again, no AC. But my friend's father just bought a Toyota hybrid that's giving him well over 40 mpg. This car is nice -- and peppy; nothing like a Sprint or CRX without AC. Yes, some cars of the past got what some hybrids are getting today, but these are far better and more realistic everyday cars.

[Rocky]

In my Toyota Highlander, driving with the back windows down in the summer as opposed to using the AC is not an option. The amount of road noise and especially the air reverberating in back of me is unbearable, worse than any sedan I've ever ridden in or driven. Does any other SUV driver have this problem as well?

Michael

Yes, in my '03 Toyota 4Runner. I like to demonstrate the oscillations to unsuspecting people. It is just subsonic but it can make it hard to breath. You cant miss the feeling on your body. It works best (worst?) with one rear window down.

-R

[kittynh]

what makes you happier? I can drive longer with the AC on. Not only from a comfort level, but from an entertainment level. If you want to hear your CD or public radio, windows up. Since time is money, I'm for AC.

[Gulliamo]

The small difference between windows and AC isn't the problem when you are going fast, where the efficiency is lower. And it doesn't cost you much in time, just a couple of minutes usually, and, moreover, I don't care if I see a cop, because he isn't going to bother with me at 58 mph. In terms of benefit, given two tanks of gas each week, and gas prices of 2 - $2.50, I figure I can save about $4 - $5 a week in gas, or $200 - $250 a year. Just by slowing down.At 4 minutes each way you are wasting 8 minutes/day or 40 minutes/week or 2000 minutes a year. That is over 33 hours. Your $200 savings divided by your 33 hours spent earned you a whopping $6/hour.

Is it possible that people that drive BELOW the speed limit put themselves and others at risk? In NYC if you are doing 70 in a 55 you may be the slowest person on the road. Even in Iowa driving below the speed limit encourages others to pass when they otherwise wouldn't have to causing unnecessary risk - all for $6/hour.

Full disclaimer: I do not drive.

[Gulliamo]

Any idea if the Mythbuster tests would have similar results in a sports car at 80MPH? What about a cab doing 60 on the FDR, or in sit 'n sprint traffic?

[davefoc]

At 4 minutes each way you are wasting 8 minutes/day or 40 minutes/week or 2000 minutes a year. That is over 33 hours. Your $200 savings divided by your 33 hours spent earned you a whopping $6/hour.

Is it possible that people that drive BELOW the speed limit put themselves and others at risk? In NYC if you are doing 70 in a 55 you may be the slowest person on the road. Even in Iowa driving below the speed limit encourages others to pass when they otherwise wouldn't have to causing unnecessary risk - all for $6/hour.

Full disclaimer: I do not drive.

For me your analysis is a little faulty. For most of my life I generally drove in the fast lane at around 80 mph. At that speed there is always a little tension around the possibility of a ticket. And as has been noted fuel economy is decreased. Also there may be a little more tension with the drive particularly when driving next to the cement barriers that separate the two directions of freeway traffic. Those all seemed like reasonable tradeoffs when I was working 50 plus hours a week and I was either striving to get to work on time or I was trying to get home as fast as possible because I was tired.

Now, I work a few times a week for roughly five or six hours a day renovating an old apartment building. If I take a little longer getting there or getting home I'm ok with it. I might listen to talk radio, maybe eat a little lunch and pretty soon I'm where I was going. I'm not scanning my rearview mirror looking for cops because I know I'm going slower than a speed that they would ticket, in general I have a nice little peaceful road trip and I save a few pennies on gas. Sometimes that can even be part of the diversion as I try to set a new record for how many miles I get on a tank of gas.

[Gulliamo]

For me your analysis is a little faulty. For most of my life I generally drove in the fast lane at around 80 mph. At that speed there is always a little tension around the possibility of a ticket. And as has been noted fuel economy is decreased. Also there may be a little more tension with the drive particularly when driving next to the cement barriers that separate the two directions of freeway traffic. Those all seemed like reasonable tradeoffs when I was working 50 plus hours a week and I was either striving to get to work on time or I was trying to get home as fast as possible because I was tired.

Now, I work a few times a week for roughly five or six hours a day renovating an old apartment building. If I take a little longer getting there or getting home I'm ok with it. I might listen to talk radio, maybe eat a little lunch and pretty soon I'm where I was going. I'm not scanning my rearview mirror looking for cops because I know I'm going slower than a speed that they would ticket, in general I have a nice little peaceful road trip and I save a few pennies on gas. Sometimes that can even be part of the diversion as I try to set a new record for how many miles I get on a tank of gas.
I can see your point, if you have nowhere to go and all day to get there then a time=money analysis is useless. If, however, you are driving below the speed of traffic to simply save money then cost/benefit analysis may do you some good.

[LTC8K6]

There was a Sprint Turbo as well. 70 horses, I believe.

We had several cars many years ago that got very high mileage. Geo Metro, Chevy Sprint, Honda Civic HF.

None of them were hybrids, either. We are just now getting back to those numbers, but only with hybrids.

[shecky]

The Sprint I had was actually plenty peppy. It had a three cylinder 1L engine, and was very lightweight. A/C would probably have killed some of it's economy advantage. But it was quick and held it's own on the highway. It was a rather simple machine, ALWAYS got me to my destination. The couple times it didn't start was due to a dead battery. The car, however, was so light and small, it wasn't much of a task for me to bump start it myself. It was even a four-door and realistically carried four people comfortably. It lasted fifteen years, several trips across country, and almost 200k mi. If it didn't need a brake job at the same time as a new clutch, I probably would still be driving it today.

I'm sure the current hybrids are nice. They should be for the price. It just kinda makes me chuckle a bit inside when I see the estimated MPG numbers, knowing that they're only slightly better than the cheapest economy car of 1986.

[Vagabond]

I would love the mythbusters to see if you can actually shoot at a lock and chain with a gun and break them. Particularly a chain. I always shudder when they do that in a movie. I expect the bullets would bounce off and hit you if you were standing close.

[Vagabond]

I guess it depends on your body chemistry. I myself much prefer having the window open in the car to using the air conditioner. I just think you are most often just trading being a little hot to being a lot cold. I would much rather be hot than cold. I usually don't even run the air in my house in the summer time. I have a fan blowing on me all the time and I am fine, regardless of the temperature and humidity.

[pgwenthold]

I can see your point, if you have nowhere to go and all day to get there then a time=money analysis is useless. If, however, you are driving below the speed of traffic to simply save money then cost/benefit analysis may do you some good.

Nominally, yes. That 8 minutes a day difference could be time better spent. Or it could be time spent reading JREF, in which $6/hour is clearly worth it. Or it would be 8 minutes a day at home watching TV.

[Shrike]

Also I thought the worry about the tires blowing out was weird. I've done 12 hour drives in cars at 70-80 mph without problems, with only stops for the restroom and lunch.

Didn't they do this on an high-speed bowl. I.e. with banked corners?
These allow you to drive with the same steady speed through the corners (or it's just one big corner), but this generates a lot of heat in the tires.

The only things I do are to keep my tires inflated and to drive with as little braking as possible meaning that I try to be aware of slowing traffic and allow the car to slow itself down before I need to use the brakes.

Overall, this is the best way to drive. It keeps you aware of other road users, hazards etc, instead of dozing of. Good work.

There was a Sprint Turbo as well. 70 horses, I believe.

We had several cars many years ago that got very high mileage. Geo Metro, Chevy Sprint, Honda Civic HF.

None of them were hybrids, either. We are just now getting back to those numbers, but only with hybrids.
Cars of the late seventies, early eighties ran very lean mixtures, thereby giving them great economy. This also meant they spewed out great amounts of NOx. With catalystic convertors, Lambda got back to 1 (air:fuel ratio of 14.7:1), this increased the fuel consumption.

[LTC8K6]

As far as I know, the Sprint, Metro, and Civic HF were late 80's and early
90's models with catalysts.

The Civic HF was also a flex fuel vehicle.

I think it was the earlier CVCC that did not use a catalytic converter.

[Just thinking]

... Cars of the late seventies, early eighties ran very lean mixtures, thereby giving them great economy. This also meant they spewed out great amounts of NOx. With catalystic convertors, Lambda got back to 1 (air:fuel ratio of 14.7:1), this increased the fuel consumption.

Just goes to show --- you can't get something for nothing; or perhaps whatever you want must be paid for with something else. One of my favorites was (is?) with oxygenated gasoline -- basically it yielded 10% less pollution, but gave you 10% less mileage. Go figure.

And why are owners of bigger vehicles (SUV's and Trucks) allowed to pollute more? The pollution levels are grams per volume of emitted gases, not grams per mile, right? There is no way you can tell me that an SUV getting 8 mpg is polluting the same amount of grams per mile of NOX and CO as the same model year Civic.

[Just thinking]

Error -- double post. (Sorry)

[bruto]

As far as I know, the Sprint, Metro, and Civic HF were late 80's and early
90's models with catalysts.

The Civic HF was also a flex fuel vehicle.

I think it was the earlier CVCC that did not use a catalytic converter.

I think the DVCC's were somewhat later in getting catalysts but they had a catalyst by 84 or 85. My 85 Civic DX had one. One of the last cars to have a carburetor, an incredibly complex system using literally dozens of vacuum lines, running to a couple of large black boxes filled with relays, solenoids, valves and the like, but without electronic control. It was like a huge pneumatic computer. I averaged about 42 mpg without trying very hard.

[shecky]

Cars of the late seventies, early eighties ran very lean mixtures, thereby giving them great economy. This also meant they spewed out great amounts of NOx. With catalystic convertors, Lambda got back to 1 (air:fuel ratio of 14.7:1), this increased the fuel consumption.

My old Sprint did have a catalytic converter. In addition it was purchased and spent most of it's life in California, which seems to have rather stringent emissions controls on automobiles. It did stop voluntarily passing state smog checks around '93 or '94, a problem which was remedied with some relatively simple hacks. While the car's emissions got worse over with age, it's also possible that the state's emission standards got tighter over the same period.

[Just thinking]

While the car's emissions got worse over with age, it's also possible that the state's emission standards got tighter over the same period.

That's odd ... can a state require a car over time to somehow improve its emissions? I mean, shouldn't the levels of emissions for that model year be held constant, as who can expect it to somehow meet later standards?

[bruto]

I would love the mythbusters to see if you can actually shoot at a lock and chain with a gun and break them. Particularly a chain. I always shudder when they do that in a movie. I expect the bullets would bounce off and hit you if you were standing close.

I don't watch much TV, and don't remember now where I saw this, but they or someone like them did just this, shooting at padlocks. The locks won.

[ZirconBlue]

Just goes to show --- you can't get something for nothing; or perhaps whatever you want must be paid for with something else. One of my favorites was (is?) with oxygenated gasoline -- basically it yielded 10% less pollution, but gave you 10% less mileage. Go figure.

And why are owners of bigger vehicles (SUV's and Trucks) allowed to pollute more? The pollution levels are grams per volume of emitted gases, not grams per mile, right? There is no way you can tell me that an SUV getting 8 mpg is polluting the same amount of grams per mile of NOX and CO as the same model year Civic.

Hmm. I don't have any data on me, so feel free to disregard this, but I read an article a year or two ago that indicated that while trucks and SUVs are allowed to pollute more than cars, they generally are only lagging cars by a few years in emisions. That is a 2000 model SUV would be similar to, say, a 1995 car. SUVs of today are much cleaner, emissions-wise, than even the most economical cars of the 70s

[geni]

This is why I like living in the UK. You don't need AC or to open the windows.

[T'ai Chi]

They have only so much time to make one of their eps and to air it, so there are some things they just cannot do. There will also be budget restraints (not per-test but per-season) and the tests have to look good on TV as well as be understandable to station execs/producers.


I thought similarly when I wrote http://www.statisticool.com/mythbusters.htm


TV is just not a good medium for reporting scientific investigations.

It certainly can be. For example, the Horizon homeopathic dilution experiment was presented on tv pretty well I thought.

[CFLarsen]

It certainly can be. For example, the Horizon homeopathic dilution experiment was presented on tv pretty well I thought.

So, science can be done on TV? Just yes or no, please.

[shecky]

That's odd ... can a state require a car over time to somehow improve its emissions? I mean, shouldn't the levels of emissions for that model year be held constant, as who can expect it to somehow meet later standards?

I don't know. However, it's entirely possible that legislation regarding emissions not be very reasonable. We've had goofier laws passed.

[shecky]

I would love the mythbusters to see if you can actually shoot at a lock and chain with a gun and break them. Particularly a chain. I always shudder when they do that in a movie. I expect the bullets would bounce off and hit you if you were standing close.
The Box O' Truth (http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot5.htm) did some informal tests with locks.

[Just thinking]

Hmm. I don't have any data on me, so feel free to disregard this, but I read an article a year or two ago that indicated that while trucks and SUVs are allowed to pollute more than cars, they generally are only lagging cars by a few years in emisions. That is a 2000 model SUV would be similar to, say, a 1995 car. SUVs of today are much cleaner, emissions-wise, than even the most economical cars of the 70s

I have no doubt that SUV's and Trucks can have better (cleaner) emissions over time -- my point is that if Joe and Bob (who both drive 15,000 miles per year) go out and buy a Honda and Lincoln Navigator respectively, Bob will be allowed to put between 3 and 4 times as much CO and NOX in the atmosphere simply because his big @ss truck gets only 25% or so as much mileage. (And although one can make an argument for someone that needs such a vehicle, lets assume Bob could easily get buy with a Honda or similar car as well -- as was always the case years back, before SUV's existed.)

[Gulliamo]

So, science can be done on TV? Just yes or no, please.Yes, it can. Can large, elaborate, verified experiments be effectively conducted effectively in 45 minutes, under a budget and within weekly time constraints? That might be more difficult.

[CFLarsen]

Let's see what T'ai Chi has to say.

[Rocky]

I don't watch much TV, and don't remember now where I saw this, but they or someone like them did just this, shooting at padlocks. The locks won.

It only took me one shot to blast apart a nice padlock (we had lost the key). I shot it at an angle with a large rifle. It left the bolt through the hasp and the rest was gone.

[T'ai Chi]

It only took me one shot to blast apart a nice padlock (we had lost the key). I shot it at an angle with a large rifle. It left the bolt through the hasp and the rest was gone.

I think movies tend to show stuff like small guns doing the job. Kind to think of it, I think I've seen a Navy Seal training program or something on the history channel where they shot the lock of a door open. I think they used something like a shotgun(?). Not too sure why type.

My choice is to get some cutters. :)

[Hellbound]

T'ai:

Did they shoot the lock, or the door?

There are shotgun rounds (10ga and 12ga) designed for shooting doors. They use something like a lead-pellet filled beanbag, IIRC. The idea, though, is not to break the lock, but simply rip the bolt out of the frame (or the hasp off the door, etc). The idea being that its much easier to break the wood than the metal. A comapny called Rhino Arms used to sell them (dunno if they're still around...they skirted close to the edge on legal issues, such as selling non-machine-gun (legal definition) mod kits to set up dual .223 semi-auto rifles to fire 1200 rds/minute).

[T'ai Chi]

T'ai:

Did they shoot the lock, or the door?

There are shotgun rounds (10ga and 12ga) designed for shooting doors. They use something like a lead-pellet filled beanbag, IIRC. The idea, though, is not to break the lock, but simply rip the bolt out of the frame (or the hasp off the door, etc). The idea being that its much easier to break the wood than the metal. A comapny called Rhino Arms used to sell them (dunno if they're still around...they skirted close to the edge on legal issues, such as selling non-machine-gun (legal definition) mod kits to set up dual .223 semi-auto rifles to fire 1200 rds/minute).

It is entirely possible that they did shoot the door and I am remembering they shot the lock; not too sure.

[Shrike]

As far as I know, the Sprint, Metro, and Civic HF were late 80's and early
90's models with catalysts.

The Civic HF was also a flex fuel vehicle.

I think it was the earlier CVCC that did not use a catalytic converter.

I can only be sure of European models (appeal to ignorance) and what I learned in automotive engineering school (appeal to authority) :D
Should have remembered that you USAians went over to catalysts earlier.