faster=better mpg
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,063
Likes: 4
From: Durango, Colorado
Aeronautical engineers can mathmatically prove that a bumble bee cannot fly. Problem is, nobody told the bee.
I am one of those who has gotten better mpg way above 85 than in slower cruising. I wondered myself if I might get better mpgs in town if I shifted at a higher rpm (sometimes, I tend to "granny drive" it) So for a tank of gas used primarily in suburban driving, I started shifting near or over VTEC, instead of way lower. Also, I stopped shifting into 6th "just because it is there" when my speed didn't justify it. Against all conventional wisdom, I got better city mpg driving more agressively as described than by driving more conservatively.
Can't explain why. Just did
Thanks,
Richard
I am one of those who has gotten better mpg way above 85 than in slower cruising. I wondered myself if I might get better mpgs in town if I shifted at a higher rpm (sometimes, I tend to "granny drive" it) So for a tank of gas used primarily in suburban driving, I started shifting near or over VTEC, instead of way lower. Also, I stopped shifting into 6th "just because it is there" when my speed didn't justify it. Against all conventional wisdom, I got better city mpg driving more agressively as described than by driving more conservatively.
Can't explain why. Just did
Thanks,
Richard
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,749
Likes: 1
From: Santa Monica-SoCal
now there is something i can relate to. when i let my friend drive the car they couldn't believe that it could rev high without damage, so they shifted at the very low revs and the gas gauge fell very fast. hmm, something is starting to make sense.
so should it be driven at 5900 rpm as much as possible?
so should it be driven at 5900 rpm as much as possible?
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 74,594
Likes: 7
From: Pensacola
Originally Posted by 2slow,Jan 23 2007, 11:56 AM
I've heard other people make this statement before. More likely than not, the novelty of the car has started to wear off and you're not driving it as hard. Therefore, your fuel efficiency appears to be getting better. 
I have also recorded mpg for periods of more aggressive driving and have gotten 22, 24mpg. Thats more than others have reported so I guess I
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
There are way too many people on this forum, evidencing this kind of behavior for it to be coincidence or error in calculation.
As I mentioned earlier, and as AssassinJN also said, the car runs leaner closer to the VTEC engagement point. The increased efficiency is apparently enough to overcome the increased losses due to drag, higher engine rpm, and so forth. Prelude owners (such as the one in this thread) have also experienced this phenomenon whereby when running just below the VTEC engagement point when cruising instead of at a lower rpm, they experience better mpg.
As I mentioned earlier, and as AssassinJN also said, the car runs leaner closer to the VTEC engagement point. The increased efficiency is apparently enough to overcome the increased losses due to drag, higher engine rpm, and so forth. Prelude owners (such as the one in this thread) have also experienced this phenomenon whereby when running just below the VTEC engagement point when cruising instead of at a lower rpm, they experience better mpg.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Originally Posted by dolebludger,Jan 23 2007, 04:56 PM
Aeronautical engineers can mathmatically prove that a bumble bee cannot fly. Problem is, nobody told the bee.
But it makes a nice story for people to tell each other, letting them feel good about not knowing as much as some other people do.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,670
Likes: 0
From: Gie
Originally Posted by bvanhiel,Jan 23 2007, 05:02 PM
Here's a better explaination.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
Check out the chart linked at the bottom of the page. Even small, light cars get worse mileage at speeds over 50ish. I believe that the S's most efficient speed will be slightly higher than average due to good aerodynamics, but 85mph is a joke. Energy requirements due to drag go up by a factor of 2...
Vtec engagement and RPM at a given speed won't make much difference. Remember, I can put it in 5th, or 4th and get to the same RPM range at a lower speed... Ram air will increase power, but not significantly increase efficiency, as you need more fuel to burn that larger air charge.
Wind, air density, and up/down hill will make a HUGE difference, and probably accounts for the anecdotal evidence offered by drivers here. I will bet anyone their pink slip that in a controlled test that 55mph is more efficient than 85mph.
-b
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
Check out the chart linked at the bottom of the page. Even small, light cars get worse mileage at speeds over 50ish. I believe that the S's most efficient speed will be slightly higher than average due to good aerodynamics, but 85mph is a joke. Energy requirements due to drag go up by a factor of 2...
Vtec engagement and RPM at a given speed won't make much difference. Remember, I can put it in 5th, or 4th and get to the same RPM range at a lower speed... Ram air will increase power, but not significantly increase efficiency, as you need more fuel to burn that larger air charge.
Wind, air density, and up/down hill will make a HUGE difference, and probably accounts for the anecdotal evidence offered by drivers here. I will bet anyone their pink slip that in a controlled test that 55mph is more efficient than 85mph.
-b
And for the record, if you look around that site (and not very hard I might add) you will find many incorrect statements. They should rename it:
How stuff works (generally speaking).com
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Relatively speaking, the S2000 is an aerodynamic brick.
Even if it's somehow a brick compared to the average car, it means that the max mpg speed would be LOWER than the average car, not higher.
I'm not citing How Stuff Works as an authority, but I agree with their presentation on this topic and it saves my from typing 10 pages. It's not comprehensive, but I don't see any glaring errors. Do you disagree? Would you like to take my bet?
-b
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Originally Posted by bvanhiel,Jan 23 2007, 07:42 PM
I don't know the Cd, but I imagine it's better than average. It sits pretty low, so there isn't much frontal area compared to a Yukon.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Originally Posted by bvanhiel,Jan 23 2007, 07:42 PM
Even if it's somehow a brick compared to the average car, it means that the max mpg speed would be LOWER than the average car, not higher.