• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Any hypermilers? And busting myths.

#21
viper4000 said:
Do you mean Km/H? The specs seem kind of high.
Click to expand...

???

Where would km/h go? He's talking about miles per gallon, not kilometers per hour? Or did you mean km/g?

In the UK we still go by miles, and mileage is generally MPG. It's impressive, but not unrealistic compared to other cars over here. It's amazing how much mileage engineers can work out of a car, especially when you get diddled at the pump (ie, over here).
 
#22
i_got_a_mohawk said:
???

Where would km/h go? He's talking about miles per gallon, not kilometers per hour? Or did you mean km/g?

In the UK we still go by miles, and mileage is generally MPG. It's impressive, but not unrealistic compared to other cars over here. It's amazing how much mileage engineers can work out of a car, especially when you get diddled at the pump (ie, over here).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I meant gallons. Just fixed it. Just read up on this Polo, and wow, very impressive on paper. Even the test drive I read about touted over 70 mpg...wow.
 
#25
Let It Fall said:
I find the more fuel efficient your vehicle and the smaller the motor the more it robs.

If your driving a 6.0 truck no you won't see a difference if your hypermiling a 50mpg vehicle you will see a difference.
Click to expand...

This is just due to the math. Suppose the a/c consumes 0.003 gallons per mile. If the car gets 20 MPG, the a/c will reduce it by 1.1 MPG. If the car gets 50 MPG, the same a/c will reduce it by 6.5 MPG.

The mistake is that miles per gallon are not additive. You have to work in gallons per mile in order to draw useful conclusions.
 
#29
Let It Fall said:
I understand the mixture will always be the same that's why it works.

Less oxygen = less fuel for same mixture.
Click to expand...


It also equals less power. You need to compensate for that by adding more throttle, which equals more oxygen and more fuel used. - A hotter air intake temp is not a benefit.

Most of your other tips are fine and the hotter thermostat is a good idea. Also, replacing the belt driven accessories (water pump, power steering, cooling fan) with electric units run off the alternator is a good idea.
 
#30
I've been urged that the average car uses closer to 50% of its energy pushing against the wall of air that highway speeds produce.

This is the main advantage of the recumbent bicycle. aerodynamics plus more comfortable seating allows a cyclist to travel faster and farther on less energy with fewer breaks. Add that to the added visibility of a large bump on the road, by the road, and it makes no sense to me that we don't see more of those strange bycycles on the road.

I want one. Not a hypermiler but I have been driving slower lately. I'll take slower highways and more time if i have it.
 
#31
Mark Latimour said:
Specs state between 67mpg (urban) and 90mpg (extra-urban) with a combined of 80.1mpg. And the cost is like £14,500 now (I was looking at 2010 pricing). If you are worried about millage its a far safer option than anything you are recommending.
Click to expand...

I really meant not avail in us and I'm not endangering myself
 
#33
hbarcat said:
It also equals less power. You need to compensate for that by adding more throttle, which equals more oxygen and more fuel used. - A hotter air intake temp is not a benefit.
Click to expand...

see I originally thought the same thing and still do honestly, but tests prove otherwise? Maybe it limits the amount of output by the motor or peak times?
 
#34
newbold said:
I've been urged that the average car uses closer to 50% of its energy pushing against the wall of air that highway speeds produce.

This is the main advantage of the recumbent bicycle. aerodynamics plus more comfortable seating allows a cyclist to travel faster and farther on less energy with fewer breaks. Add that to the added visibility of a large bump on the road, by the road, and it makes no sense to me that we don't see more of those strange bycycles on the road.

I want one. Not a hypermiler but I have been driving slower lately. I'll take slower highways and more time if i have it.
Click to expand...

I agree I have heard it was more like 45 but I wanted to be conservative.
 
#38
Let It Fall said:
Damn 10% what the hell commercials you been watching
Click to expand...

I work in a high performance shop, and it's not commercials i've been watching, it's simple fact that an intake combined with a single handheld programmer can gain you anywhere from 8% all the way through 20% better fuel economy if you have even the slightest clue what you're doing.

*edit* note that that 8% is with nothing more than the intake. no programmer included.
 
#40
Mark Latimour said:
Specs state between 67mpg (urban) and 90mpg (extra-urban) with a combined of 80.1mpg. And the cost is like £14,500 now (I was looking at 2010 pricing). If you are worried about millage its a far safer option than anything you are recommending.
Click to expand...

Note that 1 UK Gallon = 1.2 US Gallon, so that 80.1mpg translates into 67mpg on this side of the Atlantic. Which is still pretty impressive.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back