I've just learned that the disney cruise ships get about six inches to the gallon (fortunately it's deisel).
I no longer want to drive one to school.

thats nuts!!! i want to be part of aaa (anti altezza alliance) har!!!

you're studying curise ship efficiency?

:rolleyes: And we care because.......

Originally posted by Dustin_S
I've just learned that the disney cruise ships get about six inches to the gallon

And not only that,their time for the standing 1/4 mile is disgracefull! Their top speed is pathetic!their turning circle is laughable!!:eek: :eek: :eek:


Interesting snippet to include in a long list of trivia,but hardly surprising.:)

6 inches per gallon . thats like a few tons per mile isnt it ??? Never seen a mouse do so much environmental damage lol.

Originally posted by Dustin_S
I no longer want to drive one to school.

Driving a cruise ship to school.. hope u live right on the water huh?

Looking at the figures,I'd have to assume that the numbers quoted refer to the amount of diesel required to move the vessel from a dead stop to a point 6 inches from its original berth in still water.If you extrapolate the figures to,say,a transatlantic rossing,even assuming a neutral sea current,the vessel would need to refuel at sea several times during its voyage.Obviously such a massive tonnage would require an enormous amount of energy to reach any kind of momentum,but once at cruising speed,the fuel requirement would be much less.


which is all about as important in the grand scheme of things as the 'swallows and coconuts' argument,but still.:D

Hey that's not bad at all!
If you use som logic, you'll find it's pretty o.k. Now if we were talking about a car it'd be horrible because a car will only be carrying five people at best, but the cruise ship is carrying several hundred to a thousand people (how big do they make them now?) I wonder if somebody wants to figure out gas used per passenger over distance?

ss canberra (http://www.sscanberra.com/home.htm)website puts fuel consumption @ 300 tonnes max per day
at a maximum operational speed of 23.5 knots.the complement[crew]was listed as 806 following conversion to cruising (1973) the Passenger Capacity (as built) 548 (1st class) 1690 (tourist class) .

Add a couple of stowaways and you have a fraction over 3000 people

assuming that the effects of wind and current are neutral,you could cover about 570 nautical miles in 24 hours.

That's as far as I can be arsed taking the figures,and I am using a historic ship because 1/I have strong personal links with the 'Great White' and 2/Ican't be arsed finding the stats for newer vessels.

Fun way to waste half an hour though!

well if you put a honda insight engine, i really doubt the ship will move :rolleyes:

Originally posted by TexasF355F1
And we care because.......
Funny, I don't remember forcing you to read the topic.
if you don't care, why chime in on the topic? (that you don't care about, remember?)

I seek to entertain, Naki...LOL!!!!

DrkLvr, I hereby appoint you Executive officer in the Anti-Altezza Alliance.

Originally posted by Dustin_S

DrkLvr, I hereby appoint you Executive officer in the Anti-Altezza Alliance.

Piss off, TUTU!!! :mad: I was the one who created AAA. :finger4: What right to YOU have to appoint people to positions in MY club???? Hmmmmmmmmm????

umm...while it is true that one Saturntangerine was responsible for the ideas that the newly formed (by me) Anti-Altezza Alliance was formed to protect, it was none other than me, myself and I who is responsible for the Alliances affairs...

[Ralph]I like puppies.[\Ralph]

remember that horrid movie speed 2 where the ship crashes into the dock and everyone is sent flying through plate glass windows for some reason even though they only decellerated .2 knots?

Hmm... just imagine if those cruise ships used big motherf$&#ing rotaries! hehe! they'd only get ONE inch per gallon! HA!

ROTARY POWER! .. the rotary bandit has struck again. :D

Utterly ridiculous! Let's use our brains. To believe 6" a gallon is just stupidity.

A popular 3 night cruise destination is from Port Canaveral, Fl to Nassau, Bahamas and is about 650 miles round trip. At 6" a gallon (or 10,560 gallons a mile) the trip would burn 6,864,000 (almost 7 million) gallons of fuel. If the cruise line got a great deal on fuel at $1.50 /gal, the cost of the fuel for this trip would be $10,296,000. That's right, over ten million dollars. If the ship was filled with the maximum number of passengers, each passenger would have to pay $3,752 just to cover the cost of the fuel. The most expensive ticket on this cruise is about $1,800. Hmmm! Think something is wrong here? The average ticket is probably somewhere around $400. Let's give the author of the 6"/gal quote the benefit of the doubt and say each passenger pays $1,000 for the trip. That would leave a shortfall of $7,552,000 (that's right over 7.5 million dollars). Now add the cost of unlimited food for both passengers and crew, salaries of the crew, mortgage and taxes on the ship, etc. and the shortfall would be close to $8 million for this trip. Now multiply that by 2 trips a week and 52 weeks a year and the cruise line lost over $800 million for the year.

The actual distance traveled per gallon is about 34.8ft (QE2 facts). If fuel costs are $2.50/gal, the cost of fuel for this trip would be about $400,000 including idling time.

We already have a wrongly perceived lack of intelligence from the general public (grease monkey's - hence: monkeys are not as smart as humans). Please don't say or spread statements (6"/gal) that would confirm this (grease monkey's) and please think first before we embarrass ourselves further. We are much smarter than people give us credit for.

Utterly ridiculous! Let's use our brains. To believe 6" a gallon is just stupidity.

A popular 3 night cruise destination is from Port Canaveral, Fl to Nassau, Bahamas and is about 650 miles round trip. At 6" a gallon (or 10,560 gallons a mile) the trip would burn 6,864,000 (almost 7 million) gallons of fuel. If the cruise line got a great deal on fuel at $1.50 /gal, the cost of the fuel for this trip would be $10,296,000. That's right, over ten million dollars. If the ship was filled with the maximum number of passengers, each passenger would have to pay $3,752 just to cover the cost of the fuel. The most expensive ticket on this cruise is about $1,800. Hmmm! Think something is wrong here? The average ticket is probably somewhere around $400. Let's give the author of the 6"/gal quote the benefit of the doubt and say each passenger pays $1,000 for the trip. That would leave a shortfall of $7,552,000 (that's right over 7.5 million dollars). Now add the cost of unlimited food for both passengers and crew, salaries of the crew, mortgage and taxes on the ship, etc. and the shortfall would be close to $8 million for this trip. Now multiply that by 2 trips a week and 52 weeks a year and the cruise line lost over $800 million for the year.

The actual distance traveled per gallon is about 29ft. If fuel costs are $2.50/gal, the cost of fuel for this trip would be about $400,000 including idling time.

We already have a wrongly perceived lack of intelligence from the general public (grease monkey's - hence: monkeys are not as smart as humans). Please don't say or spread statements (6"/gal) that would confirm this (grease monkey's) and please think first before we embarrass ourselves further. We are much smarter than people give us credit for.

Are you smart enough to notice the date of the most recent reply?

Please think first before you embarrass yourself further.

What's the date got to do with it? I've had several e-mails in the last 3-4 months stating the 6"/gal figure and have traced two of the sources to this thread. Sorry, if the truth hurts.

Utterly ridiculous! Let's use our brains. To believe 6" a gallon is just stupidity.

A popular 3 night cruise destination is from Port Canaveral, Fl to Nassau, Bahamas and is about 650 miles round trip. At 6" a gallon (or 10,560 gallons a mile) the trip would burn 6,864,000 (almost 7 million) gallons of fuel. If the cruise line got a great deal on fuel at $1.50 /gal, the cost of the fuel for this trip would be $10,296,000. That's right, over ten million dollars. If the ship was filled with the maximum number of passengers, each passenger would have to pay $3,752 just to cover the cost of the fuel. The most expensive ticket on this cruise is about $1,800. Hmmm! Think something is wrong here? The average ticket is probably somewhere around $400. Let's give the author of the 6"/gal quote the benefit of the doubt and say each passenger pays $1,000 for the trip. That would leave a shortfall of $7,552,000 (that's right over 7.5 million dollars). Now add the cost of unlimited food for both passengers and crew, salaries of the crew, mortgage and taxes on the ship, etc. and the shortfall would be close to $8 million for this trip. Now multiply that by 2 trips a week and 52 weeks a year and the cruise line lost over $800 million for the year.

The actual distance traveled per gallon is about 34.8ft (QE2 facts). If fuel costs are $2.50/gal, the cost of fuel for this trip would be about $400,000 including idling time.

We already have a wrongly perceived lack of intelligence from the general public (grease monkey's - hence: monkeys are not as smart as humans). Please don't say or spread statements (6"/gal) that would confirm this (grease monkey's) and please think first before we embarrass ourselves further. We are much smarter than people give us credit for.I can't believe nobody noticed that sooner. I just read this and immediately worked out that it was over 10,000 gallons per mile, and then scrolled down to see who else called BS. Surprisingly noone else did. :screwy:

Are you smart enough to notice the date of the most recent reply?

Please think first before you embarrass yourself further.
Please be polite to our new members. There is nothing time sensitive about this thread.

Please be polite to our new members. There is nothing time sensitive about this thread.

Thanks blazee (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/member.php?u=279217).

I wasn't trying to be a wise guy or anything, just trying to correct a falsehood that's been flying around the internet quite a bit lately. All too often we just repeat information without first corroborating it. It really makes us look foolish sometimes, which ultimately hurts our credibility. Especially, if we say something outlandish that would make our customers think twice about our credibility and then they go elsewhere. I was just trying to help by pointing out a very, very obvious mistake.

Over 10,000/gal a mile does seem a bit off.

Thanks again for your politeness and welcoming me..

Thanks blazee (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/member.php?u=279217).

I wasn't trying to be a wise guy or anything, just trying to correct a falsehood that's been flying around the internet quite a bit lately. All too often we just repeat information without first corroborating it. It really makes us look foolish sometimes, which ultimately hurts our credibility. Especially, if we say something outlandish that would make our customers think twice about our credibility and then they go elsewhere. I was just trying to help by pointing out a very, very obvious mistake.

Over 10,000/gal a mile does seem a bit off.

Thanks again for your politeness and welcoming me..You're welcome. Feel free to look around and join in any conversations that interest you.

This post got caught by the spam filter for some reason and wasn't showing up. All is fixed now.

All too often we just repeat information without first corroborating it.

What drugs are you taking? That never happens on the internet. And it especially never happens on automotive websites :grinyes:

What drugs are you taking? That never happens on the internet. And it especially never happens on automotive websites :grinyes::lol: I just love the ones that originate in emails... like don't shop at target because it is owned by Satan worshipers.... BECAREFUL, people with AIDS are hiding dirty needles in seats at the movie theaters... Don't go to night clubs because you'll get raped....Police are telling people to avoid walmart because a gang is going to kill 3 women.


I try to spread the word about Snopes and get people to look stuff up before they spread it around but it's hopeless. Most things are dispelled on snopes, but for some reason the 6" per gallon story isn't there, I guess they decided not to waste their time, because they didn't think anyone would believe that. :icon16:

remember that horrid movie speed 2 where the ship crashes into the dock and everyone is sent flying through plate glass windows for some reason even though they only decellerated .2 knots?
Why would I want to. But yes that was pretty amazing horrible hollywood effects at it's best.