What car is this?
dante
What car is this?
dante
GrayMatter4tw
10+ year member
One louder
cruise control the whole way
65mph part has maybe 4 or 5 slowdowns due to going through towns but no stops.
the 80mph part is a straight shot though on I-75
edit: livinlife its a 1996 ford explorer sport
65mph part has maybe 4 or 5 slowdowns due to going through towns but no stops.
the 80mph part is a straight shot though on I-75
edit: livinlife its a 1996 ford explorer sport
mikeyboc
10+ year member
CarAudio.com Veteran
You would have to have speed increases and engine revs in any driving situation. The conditions and terrain for any given trip are going to vary, which just contributes to the numerous variable that would have to be considered in the equation. I know you said that you don;t want to take RPM's, so on and so forth, into consideration, but they have to be in order to come to a valid conclusion. By leaving out data, you can manipulate the results to say pretty much whatever you wanted.
- Thread Starter
- #20
In a real world situation, yes, you have to consider all sorts of elements that you can't control. I totally agree, but for sake of this argument. If you broke it down into simply constant speed with no variations in speed and took 2 speeds I'd like to know the results.
I suppose if you had a good open stretch of highway and started with a full tank and went for a few miles, maybe 10-20 to make it worth it. I dunno, I guess there's no point in arguing it because conditions will hardly ever be ideal. It's just something I've wondered. considering drag is relative to the velocity^2, the force on your car is increased much more at faster speeds. I'm to the point where I'm tired of talking about this, haha. At least some of you understood what I was saying.
I suppose if you had a good open stretch of highway and started with a full tank and went for a few miles, maybe 10-20 to make it worth it. I dunno, I guess there's no point in arguing it because conditions will hardly ever be ideal. It's just something I've wondered. considering drag is relative to the velocity^2, the force on your car is increased much more at faster speeds. I'm to the point where I'm tired of talking about this, haha. At least some of you understood what I was saying.
the question isn't speed and getting there faster it's the increased drag caused by going faster. Drag is cV^2 where c is a constant relating to the frontal area and overall aerodynamics. twice the speed = 4 times the drag. I've read 55 is the most efficient, but that depends on the vehicle:
My truck total trip 240mi each way.
@80mph (empty bed)18.3mpg
@70mph (bed loaded) 19.6 mpg
it's not 100% accurate because of the load though
My truck total trip 240mi each way.
@80mph (empty bed)18.3mpg
@70mph (bed loaded) 19.6 mpg
it's not 100% accurate because of the load though
This study has been done before.
There is a speed in every car that gets you the most mpg.
The time it takes really isn't even a factor. It all comes down to how far you traveled and how much gas you used. Throwing time into the equation just complicates things. All you really want to know is how much gas did you use to get from point A to point B.
And test it out at different speeds, and see which ones consumes the least amount of gas. Then you will find the best way to save money
There is a speed in every car that gets you the most mpg.
The time it takes really isn't even a factor. It all comes down to how far you traveled and how much gas you used. Throwing time into the equation just complicates things. All you really want to know is how much gas did you use to get from point A to point B.
And test it out at different speeds, and see which ones consumes the least amount of gas. Then you will find the best way to save money
generally you will lose economy, because when you're driving agressively you're in a lower gear which means you're engine is spinning more revolutions in relation to how far its going then it would be in say the overdrive gear. HOWEVER if you accelerate quickly to get your car into the overdrive gear earlier (for instance speed upto 65 as quickly as you can on the onramp then go into overdrive) you're saving yourself gas by going to the highergear early instead of accelerating in lower gears at high revolutions. make sense? im hungover, so i'll revise this later. but the just of it is still there. feel free to debate it with me as this is just my theroy based upon logic but it could be flawed.
This is the kicker, no you can't go faster and consume the same amount of fuel, if you don't understand, read what I quoted.
phyphoestilic
5,000+ posts
Liquid Fire...
time is money, so the faster u get there the more money u save, thus u put that extra saved money into gas, in conclusion.
Just like all the delivery services out there, u pay more money to get there faster. So u can have that extra 5 minutes to - 10 hours depending on where ur going, that u would've been stuck in trafic u can already be there and doing w/e u gotta do.
Time is definatly a factor in this, so stop trying to rule it out.
Dante - I heard u should stay under 3k rpm to save the most gas, but Iono.
Just like all the delivery services out there, u pay more money to get there faster. So u can have that extra 5 minutes to - 10 hours depending on where ur going, that u would've been stuck in trafic u can already be there and doing w/e u gotta do.
Time is definatly a factor in this, so stop trying to rule it out.
Dante - I heard u should stay under 3k rpm to save the most gas, but Iono.
Railrocker
10+ year member
Sie mich hören?
True, the railroad has a big push for fuel economy and download every train to see how your running it in regards to fuel use. They have been doing this for about five years and recommend getting up to speed as fast as you can cause this equals more time in "higher more economical gears" Getting the mass up to speed is where you burn your gas not maintaining speed. Of course this is only relative to areas where the trip is long and has little stopping.
theres no need to get complicated, its just a matter of if the engine in the vehicle of choice uses constant ratio of fuel throughout rpm range. if you were to look at the fuel mapping, determine rpm points at which each speed will match with in top gear, along with the same load input, you can determine how much fuel is being consumed and then use that quantity to go take into consideration with the time difference.
some fuel maps are rather rich in the lower rpms which could actually mean that in a high geared 5th or 6th at 65, you're revving so low that you would actually lean out a little bit by accelerating to 80 and getting the revs up to a leaner a/f ratio, and possibly require less of a load to maintain speed because of powerband... in which case the fuel consumption may actually decrease.
its all going to depend on the specific vehicle's tuning data and its gear ratios
although, this entire theory doesn deplete the consideration of drag coefficient, it would have to be considered an idealistic theoretical calculation
some fuel maps are rather rich in the lower rpms which could actually mean that in a high geared 5th or 6th at 65, you're revving so low that you would actually lean out a little bit by accelerating to 80 and getting the revs up to a leaner a/f ratio, and possibly require less of a load to maintain speed because of powerband... in which case the fuel consumption may actually decrease.
its all going to depend on the specific vehicle's tuning data and its gear ratios
although, this entire theory doesn deplete the consideration of drag coefficient, it would have to be considered an idealistic theoretical calculation
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
About this thread
