Ultra mileage vehicle!

[rayholan]

Originally Posted by Insight69

Guys,
I appreciate your inputs, however let's not lose focus on my original question. This topic is not to dispute my claims, but the dream mods to a vehicle to push our vehicles to a higher mpg.

FYI, a day my car was feeling good, I drove from my home in League City (just outside Galveston) to New Orleans (730 miles) and back, then to Austin and back (440 miles) on one tank of fuel with an average speed of approx 65 mph. Houston to New Orleans is flat and Houston to Austin is flat, until you get about 60 miles out then the hills start getting larger. In my "dream ride" I will remove the fuel tank and install a two gallon graduated tank for extremely precise measurements.

Appreciate the engineering challenge you're posing. Intriguing, yes. Practical? Hmm. Still fun to spitball things like this.

Speaking of fuel tank, easy weight reduction is to run the car with less than a full tank to save weight. About 6 lbs+ per gallon savings. Probably no effect on steady state MPG but stop-and-go will improve. Of course, then you're stopping more often to refuel.

Love the idea of 500 lbs. off the car. BIG challenge to achieve that much. However, others have posted easy and not-so-easy removals to pare 100 lbs. off a Gen1. Lighter 12v battery, dump the A/C, remove passenger seat, etc.

[RonaldH]

Originally Posted by Insight69

Guys,
I appreciate your inputs, however let's not lose focus on my original question. This topic is not to dispute my claims, but the dream mods to a vehicle to push our vehicles to a higher mpg.

FYI, a day my car was feeling good, I drove from my home in League City (just outside Galveston) to New Orleans (730 miles) and back, then to Austin and back (440 miles) on one tank of fuel with an average speed of approx 65 mph. Houston to New Orleans is flat and Houston to Austin is flat, until you get about 60 miles out then the hills start getting larger. In my "dream ride" I will remove the fuel tank and install a two gallon graduated tank for extremely precise measurements.

Can you post a picture of your FCD? I'd love to see a >100 mpg over > 1000 mile picture. The best I've got is 120 mpg over 18 miles (a loop).

[Eli]

Originally Posted by Insight69

Guys,
I appreciate your inputs, however let's not lose focus on my original question. This topic is not to dispute my claims, but the dream mods to a vehicle to push our vehicles to a higher mpg.

FYI, a day my car was feeling good, I drove from my home in League City (just outside Galveston) to New Orleans (730 miles) and back, then to Austin and back (440 miles) on one tank of fuel with an average speed of approx 65 mph. Houston to New Orleans is flat and Houston to Austin is flat, until you get about 60 miles out then the hills start getting larger. In my "dream ride" I will remove the fuel tank and install a two gallon graduated tank for extremely precise measurements.

You're the one that posted your claims. So post evidence to support them, please.

It is likely you have never measured your average speed if you think it was 65mph. To average 65mph, you have to be traveling faster than 65MPH for long periods of time. You just don't get 100MPG+ in the Insight traveling 65MPH+, sorry.

So let's see some GPS data, like this:

Total Distance: 392.2mi (631.22km)
Moving Time: 8:04:38
Average Moving Speed: 48.6MPH (78.15km/h)
Max Speed: 69.9MPH (112.42 km/h)
Min Elevation: 4,572ft(1393m)
Max Elevation: 10,141ft (3091m)
Elevation Gain: 11,228ft (3422m)
Max Grade: 7%
Min Grade: -7%

Total traveled was 402.7 miles and total fuel used 4.358 gallons, for an actual fuel economy of 92.4MPG.

[diamondlarry]

Originally Posted by RonaldH

Can you post a picture of your FCD? I'd love to see a >100 mpg over > 1000 mile picture. The best I've got is 120 mpg over 18 miles (a loop).

Here you go Ron. I can guarantee I was well below 60 mph. :P

But seriously Insight69, as you can see from my signature, high mpg is of huge interest to me. I would very much like to know how you are doing that.

http://www.insightcentral.net/forums...?dl=1359579612

EDIT: Sorry about the small picture size. I couldn't figure out how to enlarge it.

[TopFuelTim]

How about this design? Sold as an adult sports car in 1955 for $395, and delivered 70mpg!


Adult model on left, child's model on right.

[Eli]

Hahahaha.....

That's awesome. Love it.

[kaypee171]

We talk a lot about flat ground as ideal. I don't think it is. Light up and down hills seem to get me the best mileage. Think of it as altitude-based pulse and glide. If you do it right, it seems like you can gain more speed from the down than you lose from the up. There is a back road like this on my way to visit my hometown, and I can really boost my mean tank fuel economy when I take it.

[diamondlarry]

Originally Posted by kaypee171

We talk a lot about flat ground as ideal. I don't think it is. Light up and down hills seem to get me the best mileage. Think of it as altitude-based pulse and glide. If you do it right, it seems like you can gain more speed from the down than you lose from the up. There is a back road like this on my way to visit my hometown, and I can really boost my mean tank fuel economy when I take it.

I'd have to agree with you. I just keep the throttle in the same spot and let the speed rise and fall; driving with load if you will.

[Eli]

I also agree. If you'll notice in the GPS data I posted above, my total elevation gain was over 11,000' - the trip was through Colorado.

So not exactly rolling hills. But it's not hard to clamber up hills at ~60MPG @ 45MPH in lean burn, and then you go to infinity(And beyond! ) on the way back down.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by kaypee171

We talk a lot about flat ground as ideal. I don't think it is. Light up and down hills seem to get me the best mileage. Think of it as altitude-based pulse and glide. If you do it right, it seems like you can gain more speed from the down than you lose from the up. There is a back road like this on my way to visit my hometown, and I can really boost my mean tank fuel economy when I take it.

Flat and level simplifies calculation ... and it removes biases from things like driving down hill without counting what it took to go up hill ... due to less than 100% efficiency the up and down hill motion results in a more joules of energy needed to travel the same distance ... that is why it is often used to describe and 'ideal' terrain.

The reason people can potentially see better MPG on light hills is due to the ICE efficiency curves... keeping the ICE running in higher efficiency points on a flat and level often mean the vehicle speed increases ... but increased vehicle speed means more energy lost to exponential aerodynamic losses ... while on the other hand ... keeping the ICE in those more efficient conditions one can use the slightly more ICE power output to climb small hills ... the hill climbing is a way to use that 'extra' power and stay in the ICE's higher efficiency conditions ... without increasing the vehicle speed ... thus not increasing the aerodynamic losses ... then on the down hill side one gets to recover some of that stored potential energy from climbing up the hill... and thus one can see a net of better MPG on the slight up and down hills... even though the slight up and down hills do require more energy to travel the same distance ... it is possible to still make out a net MPG benefit ... because one is potentially able to get more usable joules of energy out of each gallon , even though the number of joules per mile has increased.

Potentially ... because just going up and down hills is not a guarantee ... the driving method , conditions , etc ... all play a part .... ie ... YMMV.