If you regularly wash and wax your car you might also detail the inside, which might unload extraneous stuff. This could lead to weight reduction that could result in higher mpg though it would be marginal.
5% on an aircraft doing 400+ knots and where the losses are all aerodynamicI was wondering if anyone has tried this theory of increasing mpg by making sure vehicle is always clean and waxed. I noticed in my Accord, it seems like it has increased, but not yet actually run the calculations
Myth busters said they saw an avg of 2mpg. My brother in law works for Boeing and he was telling me an aircraft will loose 5% fuel efficiency with a dirty aircraft. I know race cars are always clean and waxed.
Not measurable would be the word.If you regularly wash and wax your car you might also detail the inside, which might unload extraneous stuff. This could lead to weight reduction that could result in higher mpg though it would be marginal.
I let my cruise control give me my best mileage.
Not here, lead foot.Only if you have a perfectly flat road. I can usually get 3-4 mpg better than the cruise control.
I totally understand the skepticism on this subject. And I absolutely agree that tire pressure can make more difference in fuel economy than many other factors.
But I thought the whole reason that large ships have barnacles scraped on a periodic basis is for fuel economy. Of course we aren't talking about barnacles on our cars, but instead the difference in surface area smoothness probably in the 10th's, or even 100th's of .001".
Yeah if someone needs a graphic demonstration, try running in water and compare that to running in air.The barnacles on the ship are much more dense and rough. They're also in water which is 800x more dense than air creating a lot more drag. On top of that, the hull is constantly in contact with the moving water.
Back to cars. What makes me question that a super high gloss finish is beneficial to less air resistance on a race car, is now it seems a lot of Formula 1 teams are going with a flat paint job. Or else a flat finish that they're not trying in the least to make glossy and slick.
Red Bull and Ferrari are 2 good examples. Both have flat, non glossy finishes on their cars. These guys spend tens of millions of dollars testing everything under the Sun, in order to gain the most microscopic advantage speed wise.
If a gloss finish was that important to obtaining that, those cars would all shine like mirrors. Another example are all military aircraft. Including the very large transports like the C-5A and the C-17. They all look like they were primed, then they ran out of money, and couldn't afford to paint them.
You also get a lot of dirt on the rear bumper from the dirty air coming off the car. That's the mixture of the air coming off the roof and the air that's coming from underneath the car and creates a tornado effectThe barnacles on the ship are much more dense and rough. They're also in water which is 800x more dense than air creating a lot more drag. On top of that, the hull is constantly in contact with the moving water.
The dirt on a car (assuming simple dirt and not caked on mud or something) doesn't have nearly as much impact. Furthermore, the areas where dirt will collect like on the hood and roof don't see very much air flow at speed anyway as the air is shot over the hood and roof by the front bumper and windshield. That's why dirt collects there.
Well maybe if I knew somebody on a formula One team who had a wind tunnel we could settle this argument
The casual Toyota Camry going 65 mph on the highway will never notice the difference.
I find if I set the cruise to speed limit. Then as i go down a slope slowly rolling on to the power to gain more mph 5-7. When I climb the next hill and hit the peak at or just above posted speed that i can increase my fuel mileage.Only if you have a perfectly flat road. I can usually get 3-4 mpg better than the cruise control.