- So the point is, as you said, it depends on the vehicle. REALLY.
The transmisson, differential gear ratio, transfercase ratio, in case of a 4WD vehicle, and on and on.
What I'm trying to say is that guys with Jeeps or cars with high compression, low rpm engines tend to achieve their cruising speeds at higher speeds than other cars, therefore the increased mileage and this is NOT true for any other conventional engine due to their lower cruising speeds, gear ratio in diff and tranny.
Some good tips. What I really comprehended was that you're driving a Grand Cherokee, which I also do. Now my Jeep's got the 5.9 V8, and when I heard what you said that 60mph gets worse mileage than 85, I instantly thought about my Ford that I had, with a simple 4cyl engine. The mileage differed ALOT depending on cruising speed, due to the higher RPM in the weak engine. Jeeps tend to use V8s or inline 6's which are powerful engines that gets cruising rpm at high speeds.
Some good tips. What I really comprehended was that you're driving a Grand Cherokee, which I also do. Now my Jeep's got the 5.9 V8, and when I heard what you said that 60mph gets worse mileage than 85, I instantly thought about my Ford that I had, with a simple 4cyl engine. The mileage differed ALOT depending on cruising speed, due to the higher RPM in the weak engine. Jeeps tend to use V8s or inline 6's which are powerful engines that gets cruising rpm at high speeds.
There exists NO CAR ANYWHERE that gets better MPG at 85 than 65. What "computer" are you using? City MPH is less than hiway only because of braking (stop and go) your logic is terribly flawed. There is NO WAY youre getting 28MPG @85 in a jeep unless its falling off a cliff.
Simply not true. If a vehicle is designed to get optimum efficiency at a certain speed then it will get less at other speeds. There comes a point with certain vehicles that the amount of energy to obtain a certain speed is less than the amount of energy spent burning fuel at a lower speed for a longer period of time. Your car will get terrible fuel efficiency at 5 mph because at idle it burns more energy than it takes to go 5mph.
@averagejoeusername City is more because the biggest consumer of energy is ACCELERATION. It has nothing to do with braking. In all actuality, during braking is your best fuel efficiency because you still have velocity due to momentum without burning any energy to maintain that velocity.
But I'm talking about maintaining a speed for a long period of time.
SO wrong. 85mph better than 65mph? Apparently your car defies the laws of physics. Air resistance is what kills your MPG which increases exponentially with speed. This is why your car cant go 200MPH. City MPG is ONLY less because of braking...your logic is horribly flawed. And there is NO WAY IN HELL you are getting 28MPG at 85 dude. You have proof anywhere?I'm getting 40MPG in a car rated for 24 mixed. You sound credible which makes your post a horrible disservice.
You talk physics but you completely leave momentum out of the equation. Maintenance energy of velocity is reduced by momentum. This is why objects have inertia. If the momentum is greater than the drag coefficient and is equal to or greater than the energy consumption difference of (in this example) 65 to 85, then fuel efficiency would go up. For your logic to hold true, the slower an object travels the greater a distance it will travel and this just isn't the case.
True on the air conditioning, but the engine is not actually producing more power is adding stress to the engine taking power away from it. To be exact about 30-45HP loss of power.
Mythbusters dedicated a part of their show to testing a dirty car vs a clean car, to see which one gets better fuel economy. The dirty car won.
My car was very dirty for a while, and when I washed it, I noticed more wind noise. I will have to test this numerous times to see if my observations are consistent, though.
Tire pressure probably has very little effect on fuel economy at highway speeds because of centrifugal force, however to say that it has no effect at all is false.
The only criticism I have to offer is that the speed of the vehicle in comparison to fuel mileage obtained is determined by gear ratio. If you got better fuel mileage at 85 than at 60, then the gear ratio of your vehicle was set up to benefit from peek engine performance at 85 mph. However, more drag is experienced at 85 than 60. Therefore, theoretically the gear ratio could be adjusted to get better mileage at 60 than what you experienced at 85. Driving speed requirements should be considered.
True, gear ratio can play a part, but the RPMs that thing was turning at 85 I don't think that was the issue in my case.
I surmise that the amount of energy spent for the extra mph (from 60 to 85), in that range, was more fuel efficient than say 35 to 60. The momentum of a heavy vehicle could mean that the fuel efficiency was increased because I'm getting more out of that 25mph than I would spend in other ranges.
I guess the engine design (including carburetion and valve and ignition timing) would determine how closely correlated peek engine output is to peek engine efficiency. I understand the DOHC VTEC system is a method of endowing an engine with multiple camshaft profiles optimized for low and high RPM operations. Instead of one cam lobe actuating each valve, there are two: one optimized for low-RPM stability & fuel efficiency; the other designed to maximize high-RPM power output. Is yours VTEC DOHC?
Whoops! I understand Honda is the only one using VTEC technology at present. I suspect GM played upon the popularity and name used by Honda by naming one of their designs Vortec, which is nothing but a way of mixing the air and gas as it enters the cylinder. The design is far removed from Honda's VTEC design.
Anyway, evidently your vehicle gear ratio, camshaft profile, carburetion (injection), and ignition timing is set up for maximum fuel efficiency at whatever the engine RPMs is at 85 mph.
I highly doubt that. We're talking about a Jeep with a straight 6 in it and the speedo is pegged at 85.
Of course all cars may be different and some will lose efficiency at higher speeds. But there are many variables drag coefficient, weight, etc, along with those that you mentioned. If I get 10mpg at 5000rpm then naturally my efficiency is going to be better in 4th at 85mph than it is in first at 25mph.
My point was that it's BS that driving faster always = less efficiency.
I'm not sure if you had the 2.5 liter 6 or the 4.0, or maybe even another. The 4.0 produced approximately 180 net HP @ 4750 RPM & 220 ft. lbs. of torque @ 4000 RPM. The momentum of a heavy vehicle would need to be maintained. And higher speed would mean greater air resistance. Thus higher speeds would require greater amounts of fuel unless the vehicle gear ratio, camshaft profile, carburetion (injection), and ignition timing is set up for maximum fuel efficiency at specific high speed, say 85mph
Nevertheless, the vehicle gear ratio, camshaft profile, carburetion (injection), and ignition timing could be set up for maximum fuel efficiency at 65 mph. And with the lower air resistance and the less torque needed to maintain the momentum at 65 rather than 85 would figure out to greater fuel efficiency over an engine set up to get maximum efficiency at 85 mph.
As you say though, the lower speed doe not guarantee better fuel mileage. Gear ratio and engine settings/design would determine that.
Not necessarily. It takes more energy to accelerate than it does to maintain speed. Here's a guess;
Let's say it takes 1 unit of energy every 15mph. So at 60mph I'm using 4 units. But due to weight, drag coefficient, momentum, and the like, it's possible that another 15mph takes only .5 units of energy.
Energy consumption is not equal across the entire power band. Sometimes going fast is more efficient because the added speed takes less energy per output power than in areas of the band before
What I do know is this; the computer provides for better efficiency at 85 mph than I get at 65. And I highly doubt that the vehicle is intentionally designed to get its maximum fuel efficiency at that speed.
It's the same principle with highway and city efficiency. Highway is always more, despite maintaining higher average speeds. If going faster means losing efficiency, then city efficiency would be higher.
As you say, "Here's a guess" Too bad we don't have the facts. Otherwise we could be starting an urban myth of our own: faster = better mileage.
I once had a Toyota Mini Cruiser 2300 L 4 cyl, 5 sp. I could reach speeds of up to 60 mph in 4th; but when I changed to 5th, the Mini would slow down to 45 mph--even with the petal to the metal (meaning bad mpg). I'll stick with my theory: the lower speed doe not guarantee better fuel mileage. Gear ratio and engine settings/design would determine that.
Not saying you're wrong, just saying that there is more to it than that. You're leaving out drag coefficient, power to weight ratio, momentum, load balancing, and about a dozen other variables.
Nah, faster doesn't always equal better. Not saying that. Just saying that in some cases it is. What irks me is that media outlets and magazines invariably say, "drive slower for better efficiency" and that just isn't always true.
Well, it depends upon why you want one. Remember, a lot of power form the Prius is from the electrical grid which is largely supplied by burning coal (and in some instances, burning oil).
From an environmental perspective, hybrids are a lateral move. From a financial perspective, you're going to be paying as much or more overall to run the car (not to mention higher repair costs). From the vantage of getting away from foreign oil, it's a good choice.
I have a 2001 Seville. I usually put in Regular, but then I put in Premium, and now I notice my engine knocking. Also, should I try to keep my RPM's below 2000?
I would make sure that the plugs are in good condition and firing. It's going to be impractical keeping below 2000 rpm when driving. Use whatever fuel grade doesn't have you knocking.
I've found that it does in fact save on long trips, but only if you're maintaining speed. In other words, if you're on a level highway say, at 70 mph and put the cruise control on, I've noticed about a 2mpg difference with my automobile. This has to do with the wasted acceleration done by the human driver when going over 70mph slightly and then having to back down again.
However, if you're having to accelerate a bit to maintain speed (traffic slow downs, uphill steep grade)...
...then it's not very efficient. This is because the computer will force the car to try to maintain the desired speed, sometimes downshifting into low gears and reving the engine very high with no chance to maintain speed.
So, if you're on a straight, long road and don't need slowdowns or acceleration, that is, just maintaining a set speed, then yes it's more efficient. In other circumstances it can do more harm than good.
Every car has an optimum speed for fuel efficiency. It is obviously around 80 mph for your car. But for compact cars from 1 to 2 litre, it will probably be in the range of 50 to 70 mph. You are right about AC, it consumes a huge amount of power, and therefore lowers the gas mileage of any car by a significant amount. But it would be tough not to use it in the hot southern states.
Actually the "BS" is what the media and industries have been telling us for years; that driving faster unequivocally reduces fuel efficiency. By default, it does not.
But you could just argue that my computer is wrong, or that I'm just outright lying about the whole thing. Maybe when you grow up and realize that not everything you see on TV is reality, you'll have enough perspective to check things out for yourself instead of just being a mouthpiece for common mythology.
You've convinced me you are indeed a Basement Dweller. Nice rhetoric.
Some simple physics for you and your fucking computer:
Low tires run hotter - this is a fact. That extra heat comes from additional friction due to increased rolling resistance. Unless you're coasting downhill, the additional heat created from friction is generated by your engine = decreased efficiency.
It takes more energy to move any object faster through air. Think F16 afterburners idiot.
I agree, it takes more energy to go faster. But the quantity of energy used is not so much in question as is the relative output.
For example, for me, driving at 80 instead of 20 increases efficiency because the amount of energy used for the extra 20 mph is less than the amount of energy used at 60 relative to say, 40. Gearing is one issue, as is momentum, inertia, weight, etc. The difference in RPM between 60-80 is only 500. But from 40-60 the difference is almost 3000.
Waxing may increase your mileage on the very long term (provided you keep it waxed always), although this is not a guarantee. Waxing probably helps more with high drag vehicles, something the Corvette is not.
I believe with a Corvette the compression is sufficient that you require premium. Even if you aren't knocking at mid-grade, I'm willing to bet that you would be at higher RPMs.
I am not a car wise person. I rely on my mechanic to take care of that part so just the heads up here. But.... Ages ago I had a Ford Tarus that if I turned the AC on while sitting at a light my car would die. If I was driving down the highway and turned it on I would drop from 65 MPH to 55-60 MPH. When I took it to the shop they stated that it was because of the load the compressor was putting on my engine. Going by that and the info here I can see where running the AC will definitely hurt MPG.
I drive a 2003 Mazda 6 - I used to have a typical gas mileage of 23.0 mpg. I slowed down from 80 mph to roughly 60 mph on the freeway, increased my tire pressure from 23 to 25 psi, and chilled out on my lead foot. My mileage jumped up to 28.0 mpg.
Great video man. I think you summed it up by saying every car is different. I think we all gotta tweak our habits till we hit that combo that works.
The Mazda 6 has a tiny engine (181 cu), so I wouldn't be surprised if efficiency was negative going from 60 to 80.
However, there is one problem; if you're figuring mileage based on dividing the amount of miles driven on your odometer with the number of gallons you add, this doesn't tell you where you are getting your efficiency from, only your overall efficiency. I don't know that that's what you're doing, just saying, with the computer you will find lots of surprises.
Yes, I believe it to be the compressor. Any A/C unit be it in a house, car, or anywhere is a power hungry system that takes a remarkable amount of energy to produce even small results. Notice especially in smaller vehicle the loss of power when operating the A/C.
The wax probably helps me a bit more than most because my drag is so high. Don't know.
Mine is actually built in as an option from the factory. There are people that have built car PC's in the mini itx and even pico itx form factor that are able to account for mileage utilizing gps data and such in accordance with user inputed fuel consumption. While this is quite a bit more involved, it does allow for a further breakdown of data. I personally would not know how to implement one after market, but google might give you some answers.
The reason an ac unit robs fuel efficiency is because the motor has to drive the compressor.The compressor is belt driven just like an alternator.The avg. alternator requires 5 hp turn.The AC unit has a pulley which has a clutch.The clutch engages when the AC unit is on and needs to compress the AC fluid.The Ac unit requires horsepower to turn. The more hp accessories are consuming,the harder the motor will have to work to produce the desired amount of hp to the wheels, thus consuming more fuel.
- So the point is, as you said, it depends on the vehicle. REALLY.
The transmisson, differential gear ratio, transfercase ratio, in case of a 4WD vehicle, and on and on.
What I'm trying to say is that guys with Jeeps or cars with high compression, low rpm engines tend to achieve their cruising speeds at higher speeds than other cars, therefore the increased mileage and this is NOT true for any other conventional engine due to their lower cruising speeds, gear ratio in diff and tranny.
Dotchetter 5 months ago
Hey, I liked this vid.
Some good tips. What I really comprehended was that you're driving a Grand Cherokee, which I also do. Now my Jeep's got the 5.9 V8, and when I heard what you said that 60mph gets worse mileage than 85, I instantly thought about my Ford that I had, with a simple 4cyl engine. The mileage differed ALOT depending on cruising speed, due to the higher RPM in the weak engine. Jeeps tend to use V8s or inline 6's which are powerful engines that gets cruising rpm at high speeds.
Dotchetter 5 months ago
Hey, I liked this vid.
Some good tips. What I really comprehended was that you're driving a Grand Cherokee, which I also do. Now my Jeep's got the 5.9 V8, and when I heard what you said that 60mph gets worse mileage than 85, I instantly thought about my Ford that I had, with a simple 4cyl engine. The mileage differed ALOT depending on cruising speed, due to the higher RPM in the weak engine. Jeeps tend to use V8s or inline 6's which are powerful engines that gets cruising rpm at high speeds.
Dotchetter 5 months ago
Different cars achieve max mpg at different speeds.
As mentioned, dozens of variables at play.
No need for high octane unless engine knocks from pre-ignition.
Careful...knock can damage engine.
ononsual 9 months ago
There exists NO CAR ANYWHERE that gets better MPG at 85 than 65. What "computer" are you using? City MPH is less than hiway only because of braking (stop and go) your logic is terribly flawed. There is NO WAY youre getting 28MPG @85 in a jeep unless its falling off a cliff.
averagejoeusername 10 months ago
@averagejoeusername
Simply not true. If a vehicle is designed to get optimum efficiency at a certain speed then it will get less at other speeds. There comes a point with certain vehicles that the amount of energy to obtain a certain speed is less than the amount of energy spent burning fuel at a lower speed for a longer period of time. Your car will get terrible fuel efficiency at 5 mph because at idle it burns more energy than it takes to go 5mph.
malignantpoodle 10 months ago
@averagejoeusername City is more because the biggest consumer of energy is ACCELERATION. It has nothing to do with braking. In all actuality, during braking is your best fuel efficiency because you still have velocity due to momentum without burning any energy to maintain that velocity.
But I'm talking about maintaining a speed for a long period of time.
malignantpoodle 10 months ago
SO wrong. 85mph better than 65mph? Apparently your car defies the laws of physics. Air resistance is what kills your MPG which increases exponentially with speed. This is why your car cant go 200MPH. City MPG is ONLY less because of braking...your logic is horribly flawed. And there is NO WAY IN HELL you are getting 28MPG at 85 dude. You have proof anywhere?I'm getting 40MPG in a car rated for 24 mixed. You sound credible which makes your post a horrible disservice.
averagejoeusername 10 months ago
@averagejoeusername
You talk physics but you completely leave momentum out of the equation. Maintenance energy of velocity is reduced by momentum. This is why objects have inertia. If the momentum is greater than the drag coefficient and is equal to or greater than the energy consumption difference of (in this example) 65 to 85, then fuel efficiency would go up. For your logic to hold true, the slower an object travels the greater a distance it will travel and this just isn't the case.
malignantpoodle 10 months ago
True on the air conditioning, but the engine is not actually producing more power is adding stress to the engine taking power away from it. To be exact about 30-45HP loss of power.
big92fs 1 year ago
@big92fs
The engine has to produce more energy for less distance traveled.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
Mythbusters dedicated a part of their show to testing a dirty car vs a clean car, to see which one gets better fuel economy. The dirty car won.
My car was very dirty for a while, and when I washed it, I noticed more wind noise. I will have to test this numerous times to see if my observations are consistent, though.
Tire pressure probably has very little effect on fuel economy at highway speeds because of centrifugal force, however to say that it has no effect at all is false.
policeman1313 1 year ago
thumbs up for great information and sporting a kick ass beard!
crammage 1 year ago
i drive a jeep grand cherokee laredo all time 4 and i get 23 going 45 and 21 ish going 60
stormer1092 1 year ago
The only criticism I have to offer is that the speed of the vehicle in comparison to fuel mileage obtained is determined by gear ratio. If you got better fuel mileage at 85 than at 60, then the gear ratio of your vehicle was set up to benefit from peek engine performance at 85 mph. However, more drag is experienced at 85 than 60. Therefore, theoretically the gear ratio could be adjusted to get better mileage at 60 than what you experienced at 85. Driving speed requirements should be considered.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
True, gear ratio can play a part, but the RPMs that thing was turning at 85 I don't think that was the issue in my case.
I surmise that the amount of energy spent for the extra mph (from 60 to 85), in that range, was more fuel efficient than say 35 to 60. The momentum of a heavy vehicle could mean that the fuel efficiency was increased because I'm getting more out of that 25mph than I would spend in other ranges.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
I guess the engine design (including carburetion and valve and ignition timing) would determine how closely correlated peek engine output is to peek engine efficiency. I understand the DOHC VTEC system is a method of endowing an engine with multiple camshaft profiles optimized for low and high RPM operations. Instead of one cam lobe actuating each valve, there are two: one optimized for low-RPM stability & fuel efficiency; the other designed to maximize high-RPM power output. Is yours VTEC DOHC?
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Nope, it's OHV, and fuel injected.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Whoops! I understand Honda is the only one using VTEC technology at present. I suspect GM played upon the popularity and name used by Honda by naming one of their designs Vortec, which is nothing but a way of mixing the air and gas as it enters the cylinder. The design is far removed from Honda's VTEC design.
Anyway, evidently your vehicle gear ratio, camshaft profile, carburetion (injection), and ignition timing is set up for maximum fuel efficiency at whatever the engine RPMs is at 85 mph.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
I highly doubt that. We're talking about a Jeep with a straight 6 in it and the speedo is pegged at 85.
Of course all cars may be different and some will lose efficiency at higher speeds. But there are many variables drag coefficient, weight, etc, along with those that you mentioned. If I get 10mpg at 5000rpm then naturally my efficiency is going to be better in 4th at 85mph than it is in first at 25mph.
My point was that it's BS that driving faster always = less efficiency.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
I'm not sure if you had the 2.5 liter 6 or the 4.0, or maybe even another. The 4.0 produced approximately 180 net HP @ 4750 RPM & 220 ft. lbs. of torque @ 4000 RPM. The momentum of a heavy vehicle would need to be maintained. And higher speed would mean greater air resistance. Thus higher speeds would require greater amounts of fuel unless the vehicle gear ratio, camshaft profile, carburetion (injection), and ignition timing is set up for maximum fuel efficiency at specific high speed, say 85mph
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Nevertheless, the vehicle gear ratio, camshaft profile, carburetion (injection), and ignition timing could be set up for maximum fuel efficiency at 65 mph. And with the lower air resistance and the less torque needed to maintain the momentum at 65 rather than 85 would figure out to greater fuel efficiency over an engine set up to get maximum efficiency at 85 mph.
As you say though, the lower speed doe not guarantee better fuel mileage. Gear ratio and engine settings/design would determine that.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Not necessarily. It takes more energy to accelerate than it does to maintain speed. Here's a guess;
Let's say it takes 1 unit of energy every 15mph. So at 60mph I'm using 4 units. But due to weight, drag coefficient, momentum, and the like, it's possible that another 15mph takes only .5 units of energy.
Energy consumption is not equal across the entire power band. Sometimes going fast is more efficient because the added speed takes less energy per output power than in areas of the band before
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
What I do know is this; the computer provides for better efficiency at 85 mph than I get at 65. And I highly doubt that the vehicle is intentionally designed to get its maximum fuel efficiency at that speed.
It's the same principle with highway and city efficiency. Highway is always more, despite maintaining higher average speeds. If going faster means losing efficiency, then city efficiency would be higher.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
As you say, "Here's a guess" Too bad we don't have the facts. Otherwise we could be starting an urban myth of our own: faster = better mileage.
I once had a Toyota Mini Cruiser 2300 L 4 cyl, 5 sp. I could reach speeds of up to 60 mph in 4th; but when I changed to 5th, the Mini would slow down to 45 mph--even with the petal to the metal (meaning bad mpg). I'll stick with my theory: the lower speed doe not guarantee better fuel mileage. Gear ratio and engine settings/design would determine that.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Not saying you're wrong, just saying that there is more to it than that. You're leaving out drag coefficient, power to weight ratio, momentum, load balancing, and about a dozen other variables.
Nah, faster doesn't always equal better. Not saying that. Just saying that in some cases it is. What irks me is that media outlets and magazines invariably say, "drive slower for better efficiency" and that just isn't always true.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
solar power air conditioning toyota prius is good right?
rob92376 2 years ago
Well, it depends upon why you want one. Remember, a lot of power form the Prius is from the electrical grid which is largely supplied by burning coal (and in some instances, burning oil).
From an environmental perspective, hybrids are a lateral move. From a financial perspective, you're going to be paying as much or more overall to run the car (not to mention higher repair costs). From the vantage of getting away from foreign oil, it's a good choice.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
I have a 2001 Seville. I usually put in Regular, but then I put in Premium, and now I notice my engine knocking. Also, should I try to keep my RPM's below 2000?
Hail2TheVictorsBaby 2 years ago
I would make sure that the plugs are in good condition and firing. It's going to be impractical keeping below 2000 rpm when driving. Use whatever fuel grade doesn't have you knocking.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Does cruise control save fuel on long trips?
meduelemijeta 3 years ago
Great question!
I've found that it does in fact save on long trips, but only if you're maintaining speed. In other words, if you're on a level highway say, at 70 mph and put the cruise control on, I've noticed about a 2mpg difference with my automobile. This has to do with the wasted acceleration done by the human driver when going over 70mph slightly and then having to back down again.
However, if you're having to accelerate a bit to maintain speed (traffic slow downs, uphill steep grade)...
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
...then it's not very efficient. This is because the computer will force the car to try to maintain the desired speed, sometimes downshifting into low gears and reving the engine very high with no chance to maintain speed.
So, if you're on a straight, long road and don't need slowdowns or acceleration, that is, just maintaining a set speed, then yes it's more efficient. In other circumstances it can do more harm than good.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
Good video, man!
meduelemijeta 3 years ago
1st second through 3rd.
SILENCED hahahaha
jesuslovesyou17 3 years ago
Every car has an optimum speed for fuel efficiency. It is obviously around 80 mph for your car. But for compact cars from 1 to 2 litre, it will probably be in the range of 50 to 70 mph. You are right about AC, it consumes a huge amount of power, and therefore lowers the gas mileage of any car by a significant amount. But it would be tough not to use it in the hot southern states.
derekcolman 3 years ago
I just checked your channel. You're and evolutionist, so shit - you can't be that bad!
Therefore, I apologize for my tone - although I still disagree on the MPG stuff, but you're dead-fucking on with the religious tards.
I'm gonna go watch some more of your stuff.
pfiberoptik 3 years ago
No worries, glad you like the other vids, and thanks.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
You're right about AC, but the rest is a buncha anecdotal BS.
Driving faster increases air resistance exponentially. This is the same reason why more aerodynamic cars get better mileage: Air Resistance.
Just look to the Honda Insight 70mpg production car to dispel some to this dumb shit:
High PSI, low rolling resistance tires.
Engine stopped when vehicle stopped (no idling
Lowest drag CD of any production vehicle.
And wax? It might add up over 300 years maybe.
Stop spreading this BS.
pfiberoptik 3 years ago
Actually the "BS" is what the media and industries have been telling us for years; that driving faster unequivocally reduces fuel efficiency. By default, it does not.
But you could just argue that my computer is wrong, or that I'm just outright lying about the whole thing. Maybe when you grow up and realize that not everything you see on TV is reality, you'll have enough perspective to check things out for yourself instead of just being a mouthpiece for common mythology.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
You've convinced me you are indeed a Basement Dweller. Nice rhetoric.
Some simple physics for you and your fucking computer:
Low tires run hotter - this is a fact. That extra heat comes from additional friction due to increased rolling resistance. Unless you're coasting downhill, the additional heat created from friction is generated by your engine = decreased efficiency.
It takes more energy to move any object faster through air. Think F16 afterburners idiot.
You must drive in a vacuum.
pfiberoptik 3 years ago
I agree, it takes more energy to go faster. But the quantity of energy used is not so much in question as is the relative output.
For example, for me, driving at 80 instead of 20 increases efficiency because the amount of energy used for the extra 20 mph is less than the amount of energy used at 60 relative to say, 40. Gearing is one issue, as is momentum, inertia, weight, etc. The difference in RPM between 60-80 is only 500. But from 40-60 the difference is almost 3000.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
This guy is a complete fake!!! Do not listen to this stoner. He is one who mooches off his parents while living thi their basement. All a lie.
matthewsniffen16 3 years ago
Check out my video "pressing the reset button". I wouldn't doubt it applies to your sock puppet account :)
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
He is certainly giving off Basement Dweller vibes...
pfiberoptik 3 years ago
Thank you Very much your tips are great, keep em cooming and thank you for your time.
johnny33rd 3 years ago
Great tips, thank you for your insights.
Question i drive a 2007 Chevy Corvette so if i wax my car, and put high premium fuel ill get better fuel economy?
johnny33rd 3 years ago
Waxing may increase your mileage on the very long term (provided you keep it waxed always), although this is not a guarantee. Waxing probably helps more with high drag vehicles, something the Corvette is not.
I believe with a Corvette the compression is sufficient that you require premium. Even if you aren't knocking at mid-grade, I'm willing to bet that you would be at higher RPMs.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
I am not a car wise person. I rely on my mechanic to take care of that part so just the heads up here. But.... Ages ago I had a Ford Tarus that if I turned the AC on while sitting at a light my car would die. If I was driving down the highway and turned it on I would drop from 65 MPH to 55-60 MPH. When I took it to the shop they stated that it was because of the load the compressor was putting on my engine. Going by that and the info here I can see where running the AC will definitely hurt MPG.
sproutness 3 years ago
I drive a 2003 Mazda 6 - I used to have a typical gas mileage of 23.0 mpg. I slowed down from 80 mph to roughly 60 mph on the freeway, increased my tire pressure from 23 to 25 psi, and chilled out on my lead foot. My mileage jumped up to 28.0 mpg.
Great video man. I think you summed it up by saying every car is different. I think we all gotta tweak our habits till we hit that combo that works.
UserNum8 3 years ago
The Mazda 6 has a tiny engine (181 cu), so I wouldn't be surprised if efficiency was negative going from 60 to 80.
However, there is one problem; if you're figuring mileage based on dividing the amount of miles driven on your odometer with the number of gallons you add, this doesn't tell you where you are getting your efficiency from, only your overall efficiency. I don't know that that's what you're doing, just saying, with the computer you will find lots of surprises.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
I did not realize how much difference the wax would make thats interesting, what I can't figure out is why ac would increase load on the engine?
The compressor I geuss?
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Yes, I believe it to be the compressor. Any A/C unit be it in a house, car, or anywhere is a power hungry system that takes a remarkable amount of energy to produce even small results. Notice especially in smaller vehicle the loss of power when operating the A/C.
The wax probably helps me a bit more than most because my drag is so high. Don't know.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
Good call - whats the name of the onboard computer you have? Been thinkin about grabbin one for a while now
UserNum8 3 years ago
Mine is actually built in as an option from the factory. There are people that have built car PC's in the mini itx and even pico itx form factor that are able to account for mileage utilizing gps data and such in accordance with user inputed fuel consumption. While this is quite a bit more involved, it does allow for a further breakdown of data. I personally would not know how to implement one after market, but google might give you some answers.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
The reason an ac unit robs fuel efficiency is because the motor has to drive the compressor.The compressor is belt driven just like an alternator.The avg. alternator requires 5 hp turn.The AC unit has a pulley which has a clutch.The clutch engages when the AC unit is on and needs to compress the AC fluid.The Ac unit requires horsepower to turn. The more hp accessories are consuming,the harder the motor will have to work to produce the desired amount of hp to the wheels, thus consuming more fuel.
62chevrolet 3 years ago
Thanks for the tips, this vid was helpful and appreciated . . .
thezenofsurf 3 years ago