404 ! ! !
06-29-2008, 06:07 PM
#22
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by R3DS2K,Jun 29 2008, 04:49 PM
any of the drive down hill?
There were 2 climbs of 2500ft
06-29-2008, 08:13 PM
#23
Community Organizer
Good job Garret! You got 67 more miles than I did when I went from Seattle to the Stonehenge and onto Oregon. Mind you, I was suprised I even got that much because my drive was a little more spirited! Of course hitting Vtec through those series of tunnels didn't help the cause either! 
06-29-2008, 08:46 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ncsu-tc,Jun 29 2008, 06:07 PM
well I went down the same roads I went up, so yes.
There were 2 climbs of 2500ft
There were 2 climbs of 2500ft
06-29-2008, 09:11 PM
#25
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by R3DS2K,Jun 29 2008, 09:46 PM
that means you had two downhill with no gas of 2500 ft
06-29-2008, 09:18 PM
#26
Moderator
Originally Posted by ncsu-tc,Jun 30 2008, 01:11 AM
correct I went up and down the mountains. I am not sure if comming back down is enough of an advantage to overcome the extra fuel needed to climb. Anyone have any ideas?
Still, if I ran my S bone dry going 55, I can still see getting 400 miles on a tank.
07-01-2008, 09:50 PM
#27
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Saki GT,Jun 30 2008, 01:18 AM
If you were engine braking, then you used no fuel going down the mountains - the engine is effectively an air pump for all those miles.
Still, if I ran my S bone dry going 55, I can still see getting 400 miles on a tank.
Still, if I ran my S bone dry going 55, I can still see getting 400 miles on a tank.
What would happen from throwing it into neutral ways before the light and just coasting in neutral? Would the engine be using fuel since its essentially idling at that point?
07-02-2008, 09:28 AM
#30
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 32,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i don't even remotely try to get good mileage, and i run around 24 city driving 26-28 if its mostly highway.
OP very impressive
as for the hill thing... gravity is constant, the weight of the car is constant, and the slope of the hill is constant... so wouldn't that mean the force operating on the car is the same either way, and the extra gas uphill would even out with the gas saved downhill? i realize there are plenty of other variables, but it seems like for this situation it wouldn't make much difference.
someone who actually knows some basic physics is probably going to jump on me in a second.
edit to point out that 35 mpg highway beats the official honda stats for the Fit , 34 mpg. oh yes, i went there..
OP very impressive
as for the hill thing... gravity is constant, the weight of the car is constant, and the slope of the hill is constant... so wouldn't that mean the force operating on the car is the same either way, and the extra gas uphill would even out with the gas saved downhill? i realize there are plenty of other variables, but it seems like for this situation it wouldn't make much difference.
someone who actually knows some basic physics is probably going to jump on me in a second.
edit to point out that 35 mpg highway beats the official honda stats for the Fit , 34 mpg. oh yes, i went there..