78 mpg
Originally Posted by Spec_Ops2087,Jun 6 2008, 06:54 AM
Well by your logic then, driving as slow as possible will yield the best mileage will be as slow as possible since wind resistance is proportional to the square of velocity. Obviously this is not true as driving 10mph on a normal car will yield less mileage then driving 50; in this case because you can be driving at 5 times the speed at slightly lesser efficiency of the engine but the extra speed outweighs the efficiency / aerodynamic drag. Gearing also plays a slight role in fuel efficiency as well. Surprisingly going a 3-speed transmission is ~90% as efficient as a 6-speed transmission. Most people feel that more gears means more fuel mileage (which is true yes) but the real reason for more gears is better acceleration without hampering fuel efficiency. As mentioned in this thread, there are also fuel maps and such that must be considered as well.
Taking all those things into account, its easily possible for a car to be more fuel efficient at higher speed then other cars might. There are FAR too many factors to simply say the faster you go, the less fuel efficient you will be as we all know is simply not true.
I can also be one to attest that I get better mileage going ~70-75mph then going say 60mph. I get over 31mpg turbocharged with nearly 3 times the power as the stock engine....
Taking all those things into account, its easily possible for a car to be more fuel efficient at higher speed then other cars might. There are FAR too many factors to simply say the faster you go, the less fuel efficient you will be as we all know is simply not true.
I can also be one to attest that I get better mileage going ~70-75mph then going say 60mph. I get over 31mpg turbocharged with nearly 3 times the power as the stock engine....
EDIT: checked your sig 505whp is a nice figure... not quite 3x, but it's still impressive.
Any internal work?
While I have observed 29 MPG in my '05 AP2 on an all-freeway trip (which is 3 or 4 higher than the EPA rating, depending on old or new) averaging 75mph without traffic stops or slowdowns. It wasn't completely constant, but I'd say 70-80 the whole way. I have not done the same trip at a lower moving average. I plan on doing so within 2 weeks... I'll report back
Originally Posted by wickerbill,Jun 5 2008, 05:18 PM
Freaks. As long as they stay out of my way. I can't wait until this becomes more mainstream and I'm having to dodge soccer moms going down the highway in the left lane speeding up and slowing down in their SUV's trying to get that elusive 20 MPG.
if you can't afford the gas, don't drive. the kind of driving described in that article would lead me to homicidal rage were i behind him.
Originally Posted by Spec_Ops2087,Jun 6 2008, 09:54 AM
Well by your logic then, driving as slow as possible will yield the best mileage will be as slow as possible since wind resistance is proportional to the square of velocity. Obviously this is not true as driving 10mph on a normal car will yield less mileage then driving 50; in this case because you can be driving at 5 times the speed at slightly lesser efficiency of the engine but the extra speed outweighs the efficiency / aerodynamic drag. Gearing also plays a slight role in fuel efficiency as well. Surprisingly going a 3-speed transmission is ~90% as efficient as a 6-speed transmission. Most people feel that more gears means more fuel mileage (which is true yes) but the real reason for more gears is better acceleration without hampering fuel efficiency. As mentioned in this thread, there are also fuel maps and such that must be considered as well.
Taking all those things into account, its easily possible for a car to be more fuel efficient at higher speed then other cars might. There are FAR too many factors to simply say the faster you go, the less fuel efficient you will be as we all know is simply not true.
I can also be one to attest that I get better mileage going ~70-75mph then going say 60mph. I get over 31mpg turbocharged with nearly 3 times the power as the stock engine....
Taking all those things into account, its easily possible for a car to be more fuel efficient at higher speed then other cars might. There are FAR too many factors to simply say the faster you go, the less fuel efficient you will be as we all know is simply not true.
I can also be one to attest that I get better mileage going ~70-75mph then going say 60mph. I get over 31mpg turbocharged with nearly 3 times the power as the stock engine....
If you take this to the extreme or limit, the results are not optimum.
That is not the point here, is it?
Anyway, I understand what you are saying and we'll leave it at that.
=====
EXPERIMENT (for those curious about reality):
I ask those subscribed to this thread to try this procedure below and post back to this thread. This approach will work even if you don't have an onboard means of tracking instant and avg mpg...
1) Fill-up your tank (without topping off - just let it kick off on its own, this is important for the little gas you will be using), where you pick a station close to a highway entrance ramp.
2) Get on highway and drive at a constant speed of 65 mph (set cruise if you have it) in your top gear. Do this for 30 miles or so (of course the more miles the better, but in this day of $4/gallon gas let's be reasonable).
3) Find an exit that has a gas station close to the off ramp, then exit. The idea is to not have much city driving to affect the experiment.
4) Fill-up your tank again (letting the automatic stop kick off the pump), noting the gallons used and miles driven.
5) Get back on highway and drive the same route back to the first gas station at a constant 75 mph (cruise control again or hold it manually). Hopefully the entrance and exits ramps are close to the gas station not spoil the experiment.
6) Fill-up again, letting the pump kickoff automatically again. Note the gallons added and miles driven back.
7) Simply divide the miles by the gallons and viola! You should have the results to this experiment.
8) Report back your MPG for each stint.
This should tell us something about efficiencies driving at certain hwy speeds.
If this is taken seriously, the results should be interesting (not saying I'm right or wrong at this point).
=====
EDIT: I realize head winds, elevation and traffic or many other obstacles/circumstances other could think of could spoil this, but if approached in a reasonable manner the experiment is simple and would probably yield good results on avg.
Originally Posted by MrClean,Jun 6 2008, 11:14 AM
Actually, I have tried this mpg vs. mph experiement (not an entire tank of gas, but I will if you would fund it
).
What I noticed is that driving at 75-80 mph (what is more natural to me when traffic flows at that speed) is that I get 10-15% lower MPG than at a constant 65 mph. This is in the A4 2.0T Avant with a manual 6 spd tranny. It helps that the car comes equipped from the factory with an onboard computer that tracks instant MPG, avg1 MPG (per trip - automatically resets) and avg2 MPG (separate from avg1 that is manually reset). As the article linked above points out, there are computers that you can buy and install (if your car does not come with one) that you can use to track mileage. That is one way to prove it.
Don't get me wrong here, I spend most of my time in the fast lane (I think it's genetic) and it pains me to drive slow or in the slow lane - I have so little patience (again my wife would be the first to attest to this). However, for purposes of this discussion I threw out my experiences and take on things. Obviously, I can tell it may not be the same take as others on here have experienced. No big deal.
Let me know on the experiment funding.
(j/k of course)
).What I noticed is that driving at 75-80 mph (what is more natural to me when traffic flows at that speed) is that I get 10-15% lower MPG than at a constant 65 mph. This is in the A4 2.0T Avant with a manual 6 spd tranny. It helps that the car comes equipped from the factory with an onboard computer that tracks instant MPG, avg1 MPG (per trip - automatically resets) and avg2 MPG (separate from avg1 that is manually reset). As the article linked above points out, there are computers that you can buy and install (if your car does not come with one) that you can use to track mileage. That is one way to prove it.
Don't get me wrong here, I spend most of my time in the fast lane (I think it's genetic) and it pains me to drive slow or in the slow lane - I have so little patience (again my wife would be the first to attest to this). However, for purposes of this discussion I threw out my experiences and take on things. Obviously, I can tell it may not be the same take as others on here have experienced. No big deal.
Let me know on the experiment funding.
(j/k of course)
I bought an CRX HF back in 89 and on a trip from Columbus to Indy I acheived 62mpg travelling behind an 18 wheeler the whole way @ 70-75mph.
The return trip home I was by my lonesome at roughly the same speed (2am) and got only 49mpg
Aerodynamics had everything to do with it IMHO
The return trip home I was by my lonesome at roughly the same speed (2am) and got only 49mpg
Aerodynamics had everything to do with it IMHO
Originally Posted by overst33r,Jun 6 2008, 01:29 PM
3x? What is your setup and power figures?
EDIT: checked your sig 505whp is a nice figure... not quite 3x, but it's still impressive.
Any internal work?
EDIT: checked your sig 505whp is a nice figure... not quite 3x, but it's still impressive.
Any internal work?

stock engine with head gasket and I still log 31mpg on the highway
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Defender
Texas - Central Texas S2000 Owners
12
Jul 23, 2006 05:51 PM









