is driving over 60mph really this inefficient

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: glorifiedg790

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: conjur
Look for a graph showing how drag increases with speed and I think you'll have a good answer.

That and you run out of gearing. Cars are made to run more from the line to 60ish. Mind you a corvette with a 6speed manual goes to sleep in 6th, but I am speaking in MOST type cars.

Any American car with a good torquey V8 should have plenty of gear left. My Lincoln hits 55 in first and is only turning about 2,000 RPM at 75 in OD.

ZV

How about a 98 taurus?

Those can reach over 60mph?

- M4H

 

[nakedfrog]

Maybe if it's supposed to be an average of all cars put together (from Hummer to Honda Civic).

 

[mercanucaribe]

Guy's that graph isn't supposed to apply to all cars. It's a hypothetical graph that shows the gas mileage curve for hypothetical car. Jeez!

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

Originally posted by: Actaeon
Aside from coasting and those other "tricks", you will always get the best gas mileage in your highest gear, at the lowest cruising rpm (typically 1500~), thats typically around 35-40mph in most cars.

Yeah, but who the hell has the patience for that?

I've been meaning to try a 55 mph run between my college and my home in PA (roughly 400 miles) just to see if I can really squeeze any more mileage out of my car. I usually get about 30 miles before I say "fvck it" and go 75+ the rest of the way.

And when you're on the D.C. beltway, 75 is still Grandma-speed.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: conjur
Look for a graph showing how drag increases with speed and I think you'll have a good answer.

That and you run out of gearing. Cars are made to run more from the line to 60ish. Mind you a corvette with a 6speed manual goes to sleep in 6th, but I am speaking in MOST type cars.

Any American car with a good torquey V8 should have plenty of gear left. My Lincoln hits 55 in first and is only turning about 2,000 RPM at 75 in OD.

ZV

My Chrysler goes through the gears a bit faster (just a litte 2.4 4 cylinder) but sits at about 2,300 RPM@80 w/OD. Usually 29 +/-2 mpg highway.

 

[AdamK47]

When I'm driving 70MPH I get better MPG than I do when driving 55MPH.

 

[yoda291]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: glorifiedg790

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: conjur
Look for a graph showing how drag increases with speed and I think you'll have a good answer.

That and you run out of gearing. Cars are made to run more from the line to 60ish. Mind you a corvette with a 6speed manual goes to sleep in 6th, but I am speaking in MOST type cars.

Any American car with a good torquey V8 should have plenty of gear left. My Lincoln hits 55 in first and is only turning about 2,000 RPM at 75 in OD.

ZV

How about a 98 taurus?

Those can reach over 60mph?

- M4H

well, if you drove it off a cliff...I imagine you might break 60.

 

[Vic]

I thought it was a known fact that the EPA (and their website, fueleconomy.gov) still calculate fuel economy based on obsolete 70s-era models before cars got overdrive gears and became more aerodynamically efficient.

 

[Yellow Dog]

Originally posted by: Kilrsat
In 1987 my car was rated at 18/22 for city/highway. I still get 21-22 on the highways, even at speeds of 65+mph. Where's this grand conspiracy?

EPA Testing, which is done in a lab, thus NO wind resistance. Vehicle A/C is OFF, average speed for highway test is 48.3MPH and only 10 miles in duration, and 21.2MPH and 11 miles in duration for city.

If you get your mileage, they good for you, millions of people don't, even with optimum economic driving habits. A few "worst case" per the AAA

Among vehicles that were farthest off of EPA: 2004 BMW Z4 sports car, which AAA says hit just 14.5 miles per gallon in combined city-highway use, vs. 24 mpg EPA rating; Chevrolet TrailBlazer SUV, 13.6 mpg in AAA testing vs. 17 mpg EPA rating; Chrysler PT Cruiser, 17.5 mpg from AAA vs. 25 mpg EPA rating.

Linky

 

[redly]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
1-800-Bullshit

I made a seven-hour highway run in my old '93 Civic LX, averaging about 75-80mph the whole way. 42 mpg.

- M4H

I made an 11 hour run in an 01 civic EX auto running around 80 the whole way...29MPG when it usually got 38 in rush hour freeway traffic (indianapolis)

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Yellow Dog
If you get your mileage, they good for you, millions of people don't, even with optimum economic driving habits. A few "worst case" per the AAA

Among vehicles that were farthest off of EPA: 2004 BMW Z4 sports car, which AAA says hit just 14.5 miles per gallon in combined city-highway use, vs. 24 mpg EPA rating; Chevrolet TrailBlazer SUV, 13.6 mpg in AAA testing vs. 17 mpg EPA rating; Chrysler PT Cruiser, 17.5 mpg from AAA vs. 25 mpg EPA rating.

Linky

I'm pretty sure the 4 cyl in the PT Cruiser is the same as in my Sebring, and I've never gotten below 20 mpg, and I'm fairly sure that the Sebring is heavier. So unless the gearing is different, I think the truth may lie between those numbers.

 

[malbojah]

At 105mph ("verified" by the MA state police ) my motorcycle averages 42.5mpg. At normal driving speeds (under 105, "verified" by the Vermont state police), my bike averages 36.4 mpg

 

[redly]

Originally posted by: Yellow Dog

Originally posted by: Kilrsat
In 1987 my car was rated at 18/22 for city/highway. I still get 21-22 on the highways, even at speeds of 65+mph. Where's this grand conspiracy?

EPA Testing, which is done in a lab, thus NO wind resistance. Vehicle A/C is OFF, average speed for highway test is 48.3MPH and only 10 miles in duration, and 21.2MPH and 11 miles in duration for city.

If you get your mileage, they good for you, millions of people don't, even with optimum economic driving habits. A few "worst case" per the AAA

Among vehicles that were farthest off of EPA: 2004 BMW Z4 sports car, which AAA says hit just 14.5 miles per gallon in combined city-highway use, vs. 24 mpg EPA rating; Chevrolet TrailBlazer SUV, 13.6 mpg in AAA testing vs. 17 mpg EPA rating; Chrysler PT Cruiser, 17.5 mpg from AAA vs. 25 mpg EPA rating.

Linky

I was thinking about this earlier today. I'm guessing the vehicles are designed around the tests....i.e. designed to perform most efficiently under the test conditions. That and crash test ratings. How the fvck do you replicate those in a real world accident?

 

[newParadigm]

Only if you have sh!tty '76 Caprice that looks like a cereal box.

Like a new civic, at 80 proly doesn't do that bad, in fact I know it doesn't Got a freind who drives like 90+mph all the time still gets like 40+ mpg in his 97 civic coupe.


~new

 

[cavemanmoron]

that graph was prob made in 1974;using a 1973 Chevy Caprice with a tow package,
454 engine,3:73 gears,the best fuel mileage would be at 55-60 mph.

A smaller car it will not matter as much.

My 1964 Valiant with a V8 is just about as good on fuel at 65-75,as at 55-60,
because its geared high,and is a small car besides.

Plus I rebuilt the engine last year,put a better cam in it,and added dual exhaust.

 

The mpg stays fairly consistant unless I go over 80-85mph.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

I'm pretty sure the 4 cyl in the PT Cruiser is the same as in my Sebring, and I've never gotten below 20 mpg, and I'm fairly sure that the Sebring is heavier. So unless the gearing is different, I think the truth may lie between those numbers.

For highway mileage, weight isn't nearly as big as a factor as aerodynamic drag.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

I'm pretty sure the 4 cyl in the PT Cruiser is the same as in my Sebring, and I've never gotten below 20 mpg, and I'm fairly sure that the Sebring is heavier. So unless the gearing is different, I think the truth may lie between those numbers.

For highway mileage, weight isn't nearly as big as a factor as aerodynamic drag.

True enough, I would imagine the Sebring is a bit better in that regard. But I'm referring to city mileage there, I can't imagine the PT Cruiser only gets 17.5 mpg on the highway.