Car and Bike Talk Discussions and comparisons of cars and motorcycles of all makes and models.

78 mpg

Thread Tools
 
Old Jun 6, 2008 | 10:29 AM
  #21  
overst33r's Avatar
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
From: Palm Harbor, FL
Default

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....
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?
Reply
Old Jun 6, 2008 | 10:33 AM
  #22  
subtledream's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Default

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
Reply
Old Jun 6, 2008 | 10:46 AM
  #23  
thebig33tuna's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 32,283
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Default

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.
Reply
Old Jun 6, 2008 | 11:14 AM
  #24  
MrClean's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 1
From: Powell, OH
Default

[QUOTE=scottrunsxc,Jun 6 2008, 09:24 AM] How are we supposed to prove it to you?
Reply
Old Jun 6, 2008 | 11:58 AM
  #25  
MrClean's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 1
From: Powell, OH
Default

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....
Come on, let's not get carried away.

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.
Reply
Old Jun 6, 2008 | 12:29 PM
  #26  
pdexta's Avatar
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,953
Likes: 19
From: Knoxville, TN
Default

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)
Unfortunately I just recently had a harddrive crash on my computer and lost all my mileage logs. I actually logged every tank of gas I put through 2 S2000's. Bone stock, geared (4.44's), and supercharged, I had about 50,000 miles worth of fillups (date, miles, gallons, mpg, and price of gas). I can absolutely gaurantee you that my 2002 S2000 and my 2001 S2000 both performed significantly better at 80 than at 50. Even when geared (while it did lower the optimal speed), I still got better mileage at 80 than at 50.
Reply
Old Jun 6, 2008 | 05:01 PM
  #27  
Popeye's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,530
Likes: 17
From: Gleening the apex
Default

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
Reply
Old Jun 6, 2008 | 09:09 PM
  #28  
Spec_Ops2087's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,301
Likes: 18
From: New Jersey
Default

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?
A slight exaggeration with the 3x part


stock engine with head gasket and I still log 31mpg on the highway
Reply
Old Jun 6, 2008 | 09:25 PM
  #29  
gomarlins3's Avatar
Gold Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 23,398
Likes: 108
From: Kuna Idaho
Default

You might just be surprised how much fuel you can save if you slow down. MPH made a HUGE difference in my MPG when I had my Insight.
Reply
Old Jun 7, 2008 | 08:51 AM
  #30  
Dr. WOT's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,642
Likes: 0
From: Easton
Default

All I know is how pissed off I am about everyone else trying to save fuel by slowing down in front of me.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dlq04
S2000 Vintage Owners
15
Apr 6, 2011 07:37 PM
j8mie
Car Talk - Non S2000
5
Aug 10, 2007 07:06 AM
Red-S2k-00
S2000 Talk
74
Sep 13, 2006 05:35 PM
Defender
Texas - Central Texas S2000 Owners
12
Jul 23, 2006 05:51 PM
StockSH
Car and Bike Talk
9
Apr 8, 2005 01:05 AM




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:17 PM.